The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: After Trump Loses, What's Next For The GOP?
Source:
Impact Tap
URL Source: http://theimpacttap.com/2016/10/26/ ... at-comes-next-for-republicans/
Published: Oct 27, 2016
Author: Patrick Glennon
Post Date: 2016-10-27 09:29:40 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 18904
Comments: 105
It is very uncontroversial to say that Donald Trump is – well – controversial. The Republican nominee for president has burned bridges with a number of communities: he mocked a reporter with a disability; he attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents of a fallen solider, alienating veterans and veterans’ families as well as Muslim-Americans; his attacks on women are too many to enumerate here, but a couple of highlights include the “grope” video describing how he sexually assaults women as well as his insinuation that moderator Megyn Kelly was perhaps menstruating during a Republican primary debate last year; he has also continuously suggested that black Americans live in some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape. Much to the chagrin of the majority of the United States electorate, none of these incidents seemed to dent Trump’s popularity among his support base, which helped reenforce the narrative of a viable Trump campaign by turning out in droves to his speaking events. But as we edge closer to the end of this historically bizarre (and exceedingly long) election cycle, it appears a near-certainty that Trump will fall to Clinton on November 8. While Republican senate candidates are faring a little better than their toxic presidential nominee, the fact remains that the “Trump effect” has impacted their poll numbers. The result? Democrats are now the cautious favorite to retake the senate, dividing congress and sapping Republicans of the ability to completely stonewall a Clinton administration. A quick look at the polling map lends some interesting insight into just how divisive Trump has been. Even if they still fall in Trump’s electoral basket come election day, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia have drifted very close to the toss-up column. This is a huge alarm for Republicans, who – following defeat to Barack Obama – drafted a plan to appeal to demographics pushed away by the Republican party’s rhetoric and policy, including millennials and Latin Americans. Even before Trump’s scorched earth campaign, Republicans were worrying about demographic changes that indicate that traditionally safe conservative states – such as those mentioned above – could become more competitive as soon as the year 2020. This cycle did the party no favors; the political transition underway in conservative states may accelerate as Trump’s strategy of catering to white nationalist voters has alienated large swaths of the population Republicans were eager to mollify. Republicans’ task of broadening their appeal will only be further complicated by a post-election Trump, who – analysts are suggesting – could use his formidable base and powerful media allies to target GOP leadership for failing to adequately support the pugnacious nominee. This “Republican civil war” could end in a number of ways. Perhaps it will end with a more 21st century party in-tune with contemporary social norms, women’s rights, and climate change. Or, the party could dissolve entirely. We’ll have to wait and see.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-56) not displayed.
.
.
.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
Yeah ... well.
As sniffer would say, "Every single one of dozens of news organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad reporting? No sale."
I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please? You go ahead and believe that if you want. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Facts always trigger you cucks.
Take your horse fantasies elsewhere. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Pollsters, weather forecasters and union members -- all bulletproof.
You keep saying that like it means something.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!
My words do mean something. The Constitution Party that you keep pushing was registered in 44 states in 2012 and received app. 2700 votes in each of those states. More people attend one Friday night HS football game than vote for the CP. Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
No, Great and Powerul! Not at all! I ... uh ... was referring to weather. That's it! Weather. Not climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do! I do! I do! How about if I come back tomorrow?
My point is, when they are wrong it's never held against them.
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
You use the word and when you do others apply that definition. You need to either explain your word or use another. People may begin to think you're being disingenuous.
They might as well write in Pat Paulsen.
My uncle!
Neocon conservatism is dead., Open borders free trade conservatism is dead. Good riddance.
Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate. https://t.co/xZZc3AsfAt— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) October 30, 2016
With Comey's announcement they now have the excuse to show the true polling results. "Trump was down 20 points but, given this newest FBI revelation, he's now up by 6."
Oh, you think I support them with the idea they might win ... how very stupid of you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Anyone besides you? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You and Adams should have read a few sentences further - any 'bias' was in Trump's favor: "Mrs. Clinton would have actually led in The Upshot’s survey if it, like most others, didn’t weight by party registration." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. They must fear it might be, else why bother to attempt to be accurate? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. YOU claimed there was NO bias because bad forecasts would damage their BRAND. You're too dim to see you're now attacking your own previous position. Cucks are dumb.
Weather forecasters attempt to be accurate out of fear?
They're afraid of ManBearPig.
Whoever read my post. Not you, of course. You have your own secret definition.
Half man, half bear, half pig.
Algore would never make bad forecasts, That would damage his brand.
Cucks insist that pollsters would never take money for inaccurate polls.
YOU claimed there was NO bias because bad forecasts would damage their BRAND. Reread "any 'bias'" - move your lips if it helps. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "They must fear it might be, else why bother to attempt to be accurate?" Weather forecasters attempt to be accurate out of fear? Fear of market failure ... desire to avoid market failure ... call it what you will. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "Anyone besides you?" Whoever read my post. Can you offer any reason to believe that? Smells like bullshit from here. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I realize you don't support them thinking that they can win, after all they get 0.09% of the national vote. Your support is more of a brain malfunction thingie.
And yet you post to me evidence of what you know I already know. Sounds like a brain malfunction. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. We don't know what Hart Associates was paid for because the filings don't require that information; since campaigns do internal polling it's not a huge stretch for PACs to also pay for their own polls.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Peter D. Hart, a Democrat pollster, knows something that you don't. Money is fungible.
Ah! I see. So some weather forecasters have been fired because they were wrong? TV stations closed because their weatherman caused "market failure"?
Sure. It's the definition of accuracy. Given the data, they produce an accurate report. As I said before, it's not at all representative of the electorate but it does allow you (and them) to say it's accurate.
Comments (98 - 105) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"I stand corrected."
#58. To: misterwhite (#56)
#59. To: misterwhite (#53)
If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.
#60. To: misterwhite (#56)
The Tribune is still in business
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
#62. To: Roscoe (#61)
trigger
#63. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
"And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please?"
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
#65. To: Vinny (#64)
#66. To: misterwhite (#63)
weather forecasters
#67. To: misterwhite (#63)
weather forecasters
#68. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
You keep saying that like it means something.
#69. To: Roscoe (#67)
(Edited)
"You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!"
#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
"They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?"
#71. To: Vinny (#68)
"... app. 2700 votes in each of those states."
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#59)
"I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it."
#73. To: misterwhite (#71)
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
#74. To: Vinny (#73)
"They might as well write in Pat Paulsen."
#75. To: Willie Green (#0)
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
#77. To: Roscoe (#76)
"Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate."
#78. To: Vinny (#68)
Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
#79. To: misterwhite (#72)
others apply that definition.
#80. To: Roscoe (#76)
#81. To: misterwhite (#70)
when they are wrong it's never held against them.
#82. To: ConservingFreedom (#80)
(Edited)
any 'bias' was in Trump's favor
#83. To: ConservingFreedom (#81)
"They must fear it might be, else why bother to attempt to be accurate?"
#84. To: misterwhite (#83)
Weather forecasters attempt to be accurate out of fear?
#85. To: ConservingFreedom (#79)
"others apply that definition."
"Anyone besides you?"
#86. To: Roscoe (#84)
#87. To: misterwhite (#86)
#88. To: misterwhite (#85)
#89. To: Roscoe (#82)
"any 'bias' was in Trump's favor"
#90. To: misterwhite (#83)
when they are wrong it's never held against them.
#91. To: misterwhite (#85)
others apply that definition.
#92. To: ConservingFreedom (#78)
Oh, you think I support them with the idea they might win ... how very stupid of you.
#93. To: Vinny (#92)
I realize you don't support them thinking that they can win
#94. To: Roscoe (#88)
#95. To: ConservingFreedom (#94)
(Edited)
#96. To: ConservingFreedom (#90)
"Fear of market failure ... desire to avoid market failure ... call it what you will."
#97. To: ConservingFreedom (#91)
"Can you offer any reason to believe that?"
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]