The Missed Opportunity President

[BigRedBuster]

 

I've always liked John Kasich from Ohio for some reason.

 

I don't really know a lot about him, but he's always struck me as common sense Republican.

 

Someone who balances businesses need to have room to operate and still protecting the environment.

 

Plus, I think when it comes to LBGTQIA issues, he's not in the "pro" camp...but he's not a bigot either. (And with Republicans, that's as good as "pro.")

 

Agreed. Kasich was head and shoulders the best candidate the GOP fielded. I'll never understand why they didn't collectively throw their support behind him from the beginning.

 

I really believe the Republican party tried to do the right thing and it totally back fired on them. They tried putting 18 people in the race and let the voters decide. That was at the very beginning. Once Trump started blabbing like a 2nd grader on stage and a certain group of voters started supporting him, it was too late.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

I've always liked John Kasich from Ohio for some reason.

 

I don't really know a lot about him, but he's always struck me as common sense Republican.

 

Someone who balances businesses need to have room to operate and still protecting the environment.

 

Plus, I think when it comes to LBGTQIA issues, he's not in the "pro" camp...but he's not a bigot either. (And with Republicans, that's as good as "pro.")

 

Agreed. Kasich was head and shoulders the best candidate the GOP fielded. I'll never understand why they didn't collectively throw their support behind him from the beginning.

 

I really believe the Republican party tried to do the right thing and it totally back fired on them. They tried putting 18 people in the race and let the voters decide. That was at the very beginning. Once Trump started blabbing like a 2nd grader on stage and a certain group of voters started supporting him, it was too late.

 

 

That's the base of the GOP you're talking about.

 

Unfortunate as it is, that certain group is batsh#t insane and preferred Trump over someone reasonable like Kasich. They've been conditioned to crave this in their politicians somehow.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I've always liked John Kasich from Ohio for some reason.

 

I don't really know a lot about him, but he's always struck me as common sense Republican.

 

Someone who balances businesses need to have room to operate and still protecting the environment.

 

Plus, I think when it comes to LBGTQIA issues, he's not in the "pro" camp...but he's not a bigot either. (And with Republicans, that's as good as "pro.")

 

Agreed. Kasich was head and shoulders the best candidate the GOP fielded. I'll never understand why they didn't collectively throw their support behind him from the beginning.

 

I really believe the Republican party tried to do the right thing and it totally back fired on them. They tried putting 18 people in the race and let the voters decide. That was at the very beginning. Once Trump started blabbing like a 2nd grader on stage and a certain group of voters started supporting him, it was too late.

 

 

That's the base of the GOP you're talking about.

 

Unfortunate as it is, that certain group is batsh#t insane and preferred Trump over someone reasonable like Kasich. They've been conditioned to crave this in their politicians somehow.

 

I guess that depends on what you call the "base" of a party.

 

I personally don't think the people who voted him as the nominee early in the primary process is your typical Republican voter. So, I would not call that the "base" of the party.

[zoogs]

What is the "base" and how would you characterize them?

[BigRedBuster]

The "base" of a party to me would the the voters for that party who have voted for that party over a period of time and in a certain way.

 

The voters in the early states that voted for Trump were NOT your average Republican. It was filled with fairly heavily union or unemployed votes that typically would have gone Democrat. They also included a lot of new voters that had sat out elections.

 

How would you define a party "base"?

[Danny Bateman]

How would we define Trumpism on a liberal-conservative spectrum? I know it's en vogue to describe him as not married to any one political orthodoxy and claim that flexibility is a key strength. But, given two alternatives, I would say he's much more distinctly hardline conservative than he is liberal. The things he's actually pursued or expressed (real) interest in so far are almost exclusively right-wing priorities: deportations, travel ban, repeal and replace, tax reform (including huge tax cuts), interventionism in Syria and saber-rattling at North Korea, Gorsuch, hardline conservative stances on all matters in the DOJ under Sessions, selling our internet privacy - I've yet to see serious offer at liberal policies. He does seem to be moderating himself somewhat now, with the Iran deal and a few other things. I'd imagine that would increase if Bannon is ousted.

 

But the VOTING base of the GOP, i.e., those that actually voted in the primaries, were drawn like moths to a flame for Trump. Their second choice was Cruz, who is a Tea Partier. The Tea Party still hold substantial power in Congress. Meanwhile, they wouldn't sniff Kasich anywhere but Ohio.

 

Some pretty reliable Republican blocs went reliably to Trump in the GE, too. IIRC, evangelical Christians had the highest percentage of voters go for him. He still did quite well among married women, who are much more Republican than unmarried women if I'm not mistaken.

 

He definitely won over non-GOP voters too, notably the working class, but a whole lot of those who would proudly self-identify as Republicans got sucked into the quicksand that is DJT.

[Lil' Red]

The "base" of a party to me would the the voters for that party who have voted for that party over a period of time and in a certain way.

 

The voters in the early states that voted for Trump were NOT your average Republican. It was filled with fairly heavily union or unemployed votes that typically would have gone Democrat. They also included a lot of new voters that had sat out elections.

 

How would you define a party "base"?

 

I agree with your definition of the base but I disagree with your assessment of Trump's primary voters. This article shows that Trump primary voters were fairly wealthy so it is unlikely he was heavily reliant on union or unemployed votes. This article refutes the idea that he was drawing more primary support from Democrats than previous candidates. Finally this article shows that although he did receive a lot of votes from people that don't normally vote in the primary, his voters did typically vote in the general election. I'd say that voters who typically skip the primaries but vote Republican in the general election would still count towards "the base" but you may disagree on that point.

[zoogs]

I would define the base in the same way; their core, consistent voters --

the ones who drive and sustain this ship of conservative talk radio, birtherism, God-and-guns rhetoric deeply disdainful of Obama and welfare programs they perceive to be targeted at "others". The people who rallied behind Trump and who currently support him steadfastly *because of*, not in spite of his rhetoric towards Muslisms, decency, et. al.

 

"Average" has this definition of being the mean over all n. This concept of the small government conservative Republican sounds more like a minority elite, the former old guard who now find themselves as ideological pariahs with numbers too ineffectual to hold sway. Besides, where does their ideology lie? With the Paul Ryans of the world? The deregulatory neocons of the Bush era? It's been a pretty unpleasant-looking record on all fronts for quite some time.

 

The 'average Republican' that I *think* you are invoking sounds a lot more like the 'average Democrat' to me -- although with Sanders, this is perhaps changing, too.

[BigRedBuster]

I would define the base in the same way; their core, consistent voters --

the ones who drive and sustain this ship of conservative talk radio, birtherism, God-and-guns rhetoric deeply disdainful of Obama and welfare programs they perceive to be targeted at "others". The people who rallied behind Trump and who currently support him steadfastly *because of*, not in spite of his rhetoric towards Muslisms, decency, et. al.

 

"Average" has this definition of being the mean over all n. This concept of the small government conservative Republican sounds more like a minority elite, the former old guard who now find themselves as ideological pariahs with numbers too ineffectual to hold sway. Besides, where does their ideology lie? With the Paul Ryans of the world? The deregulatory neocons of the Bush era? It's been a pretty unpleasant-looking record on all fronts for quite some time.

 

The 'average Republican' that I *think* you are invoking sounds a lot more like the 'average Democrat' to me -- although with Sanders, this is perhaps changing, too.

To the bold, I don't remember invoking the "average Republican". I'm pretty sure my post was about Trump voters early in the primaries.

 

Second, the General Election is not what I'm talking about. Of course just about every Republican was going to not vote for Hillary. That's one good reason why she was the most pathetic candidate the Dems could have put up. Good Lord....if Trump could beat her.....Wow....there had to be someone better.

 

What I am talking about are the Trump voters specifically in the early states that gave him the lead when there still was well over 10 candidates. The establishment Republicans were going for Kasich, Bush, Carson...etc. THESE voters in the early primaries were not your normal Republicans. THEY are the ones that set this whole thing in motion against the establishment Republicans.

 

I'll give you a prime example of what I'm talking about. My father was all on board with Carson. He had bumper stickers all over his car for Carson. He had convinced all his friends to vote for Carson. He even drove 7 hours to a rally for Carson so he could meet him.

 

But, living in Nebraska, he had absolutely no chance to have any vote on who the nomination was. Well....he sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Hillary...so, now he's all in for Trump.

[TGHusker]

How would we define Trumpism on a liberal-conservative spectrum? I know it's en vogue to describe him as not married to any one political orthodoxy and claim that flexibility is a key strength. But, given two alternatives, I would say he's much more distinctly hardline conservative than he is liberal. The things he's actually pursued or expressed (real) interest in so far are almost exclusively right-wing priorities: deportations, travel ban, repeal and replace, tax reform (including huge tax cuts), interventionism in Syria and saber-rattling at North Korea, Gorsuch, hardline conservative stances on all matters in the DOJ under Sessions, selling our internet privacy - I've yet to see serious offer at liberal policies. He does seem to be moderating himself somewhat now, with the Iran deal and a few other things. I'd imagine that would increase if Bannon is ousted.

 

But the VOTING base of the GOP, i.e., those that actually voted in the primaries, were drawn like moths to a flame for Trump. Their second choice was Cruz, who is a Tea Partier. The Tea Party still hold substantial power in Congress. Meanwhile, they wouldn't sniff Kasich anywhere but Ohio.

 

Some pretty reliable Republican blocs went reliably to Trump in the GE, too. IIRC, evangelical Christians had the highest percentage of voters go for him. He still did quite well among married women, who are much more Republican than unmarried women if I'm not mistaken.

 

He definitely won over non-GOP voters too, notably the working class, but a whole lot of those who would proudly self-identify as Republicans got sucked into the quicksand that is DJT.

I would disagree with your assessment on the liberal/conservative spectrum. I don't think you can classify him in that spectrum. He is an 'opportunist' - He is neither conservative or liberal in his core convictions. He will slide up and down that spectrum depending on the opportunity & what it brings him. His convictions are centered on the dogma of the Trump Brand - whatever exults the brand is what he is. So, his apparent embrace of conservative ideas during the primary and GE was his ticket to promote his brand. His hard line against the 'Freedom Caucus' after the health care vote revealed this. His backing away from many of his 'core campaign pledges' are showing this. Now that he is in office, he doesn't need core conservative convictions - just enough to get him what he wants. If is best route to the presidency was via the Dem party, I am convinced we would have seen a liberal Trump. The Trump Brand is his allegiance - not a party or a core political conviction.

[TGHusker]

 

I've always liked John Kasich from Ohio for some reason.

 

I don't really know a lot about him, but he's always struck me as common sense Republican.

 

Someone who balances businesses need to have room to operate and still protecting the environment.

 

Plus, I think when it comes to LBGTQIA issues, he's not in the "pro" camp...but he's not a bigot either. (And with Republicans, that's as good as "pro.")

 

Agreed. Kasich was head and shoulders the best candidate the GOP fielded. I'll never understand why they didn't collectively throw their support behind him from the beginning.

 

I would have like a Kasich/Rubio or a Kasich/Paul ticket. AT times Kasich was the only adult on the stage when 3-4 others were playing their gotcha games during the debates.

[RedDenver]

 

How would we define Trumpism on a liberal-conservative spectrum? I know it's en vogue to describe him as not married to any one political orthodoxy and claim that flexibility is a key strength. But, given two alternatives, I would say he's much more distinctly hardline conservative than he is liberal. The things he's actually pursued or expressed (real) interest in so far are almost exclusively right-wing priorities: deportations, travel ban, repeal and replace, tax reform (including huge tax cuts), interventionism in Syria and saber-rattling at North Korea, Gorsuch, hardline conservative stances on all matters in the DOJ under Sessions, selling our internet privacy - I've yet to see serious offer at liberal policies. He does seem to be moderating himself somewhat now, with the Iran deal and a few other things. I'd imagine that would increase if Bannon is ousted.

 

But the VOTING base of the GOP, i.e., those that actually voted in the primaries, were drawn like moths to a flame for Trump. Their second choice was Cruz, who is a Tea Partier. The Tea Party still hold substantial power in Congress. Meanwhile, they wouldn't sniff Kasich anywhere but Ohio.

 

Some pretty reliable Republican blocs went reliably to Trump in the GE, too. IIRC, evangelical Christians had the highest percentage of voters go for him. He still did quite well among married women, who are much more Republican than unmarried women if I'm not mistaken.

 

He definitely won over non-GOP voters too, notably the working class, but a whole lot of those who would proudly self-identify as Republicans got sucked into the quicksand that is DJT.

I would disagree with your assessment on the liberal/conservative spectrum. I don't think you can classify him in that spectrum. He is an 'opportunist' - He is neither conservative or liberal in his core convictions. He will slide up and down that spectrum depending on the opportunity & what it brings him. His convictions are centered on the dogma of the Trump Brand - whatever exults the brand is what he is. So, his apparent embrace of conservative ideas during the primary and GE was his ticket to promote his brand. His hard line against the 'Freedom Caucus' after the health care vote revealed this. His backing away from many of his 'core campaign pledges' are showing this. Now that he is in office, he doesn't need core conservative convictions - just enough to get him what he wants. If is best route to the presidency was via the Dem party, I am convinced we would have seen a liberal Trump. The Trump Brand is his allegiance - not a party or a core political conviction.

 

QFT. Great summation of Trump's ideology.

 

I think this will ultimately be his undoing as well. People don't like it when you repeatedly and brazenly lie to them. And the trail of broken promises will catch up to Trump.

[zoogs]

Kasich and Bush never even getting traction is the clearest sign to me that the GOP's ideological center has been reduced to nothing more than a token minority. Decades of caustic conservative news media programming has this kind of effect, unfortunately.

[BigRedBuster]

 

How would we define Trumpism on a liberal-conservative spectrum? I know it's en vogue to describe him as not married to any one political orthodoxy and claim that flexibility is a key strength. But, given two alternatives, I would say he's much more distinctly hardline conservative than he is liberal. The things he's actually pursued or expressed (real) interest in so far are almost exclusively right-wing priorities: deportations, travel ban, repeal and replace, tax reform (including huge tax cuts), interventionism in Syria and saber-rattling at North Korea, Gorsuch, hardline conservative stances on all matters in the DOJ under Sessions, selling our internet privacy - I've yet to see serious offer at liberal policies. He does seem to be moderating himself somewhat now, with the Iran deal and a few other things. I'd imagine that would increase if Bannon is ousted.

 

But the VOTING base of the GOP, i.e., those that actually voted in the primaries, were drawn like moths to a flame for Trump. Their second choice was Cruz, who is a Tea Partier. The Tea Party still hold substantial power in Congress. Meanwhile, they wouldn't sniff Kasich anywhere but Ohio.

 

Some pretty reliable Republican blocs went reliably to Trump in the GE, too. IIRC, evangelical Christians had the highest percentage of voters go for him. He still did quite well among married women, who are much more Republican than unmarried women if I'm not mistaken.

 

He definitely won over non-GOP voters too, notably the working class, but a whole lot of those who would proudly self-identify as Republicans got sucked into the quicksand that is DJT.

I would disagree with your assessment on the liberal/conservative spectrum. I don't think you can classify him in that spectrum. He is an 'opportunist' - He is neither conservative or liberal in his core convictions. He will slide up and down that spectrum depending on the opportunity & what it brings him. His convictions are centered on the dogma of the Trump Brand - whatever exults the brand is what he is. So, his apparent embrace of conservative ideas during the primary and GE was his ticket to promote his brand. His hard line against the 'Freedom Caucus' after the health care vote revealed this. His backing away from many of his 'core campaign pledges' are showing this. Now that he is in office, he doesn't need core conservative convictions - just enough to get him what he wants. If is best route to the presidency was via the Dem party, I am convinced we would have seen a liberal Trump. The Trump Brand is his allegiance - not a party or a core political conviction.

 

I agree with this.

 

The interesting thing about the bold is that right now, he could pretty much suggest and push through any liberal stance on an issue and a very large part of the conservative vote would follow right along simply because he has an "R" next to his name.

[Danny Bateman]

But the Freedom Caucus already revolted because the healthcare plan that Ryan drew up (and Trump stood behind enthusiastically) wasn't conservative enough.

 

Now, it appears they're all on the same page on tax cuts, mostly. But their broader tax reform agenda seems to be up in the air because they couldn't pass healthcare in the first place, and they don't all seem to agree on this border-adjustment tax issue.

 

If his plans aren't sufficiently conservative, I think the GOP remains a risk to torpedo his agenda.

 

I don't think they'll simply go along if he starts morphing into a liberal willy nilly. But a lot of this depends on public perception and poll numbers.