Politico claiming Trump isn’t expanding the GOP or its electoral map. The data suggest that Trump’s voters aren’t new to the GOP - they are reliable general election voters who are simply showing up to vote in primaries when they didn’t before.
Every U.S. president elected to office since 1852 has belonged to one of two political parties: Republicans and Democrats.
The chance of a third party candidate winning in 2016 is pretty much zip.
I agree with the writer of the article:
“Any way it’s sliced, the historic primary turnout of 2016 is good news for the GOP. It is a sign, as it was for Democrats in 2008 when the Clinton-Obama contest shattered old turnout records, of energy and enthusiasm that can often be translated into volunteer hours and campaign cash. And Democrats this year, despite the surprisingly close contest between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are far below their previous turnout highs—raising the specter of a problematic enthusiasm gap this fall.”
Even Ross Perot with his billions, which were in cash and not tied up in real estate, could not get more than 19% of the vote as a third party candidate in 1992.
Should Romney be foolish enough to try it he will make a laughing stock out of himself and tarnish his legacy.
Haven’t you been claiming that Trump is pulling in legions of disaffected Democrats?
In any event, you should have read the rest of the article:
“It’s very hard to say that anything that happens in the primary season has that much of an impact on the general,” said Drew DeSilver of the Pew Research Center, who has studied presidential voter turnout. Of the past six presidential elections with competitive primaries in both parties, the party with the higher primary turnout has won more votes in the fall only three times, he noted. “There is definitely not a correlation between turnout in the primaries and success in the general election."
Yes, I read the entire article and think my quote above speaking about the general excitement regarding the candidate is most important. 11 million voters have turned out to vote for Trump (more tonight). As you know that is a record beating Romney and McCain handily.
Regardless there is excitement as there was for Obama in 2008. And that is one (of several) indicators that Hillary will not be elected to the Presidency. As the author states it’s all about “energy and enthusiasm.” Trumps voters will turnout and Hillary’s are not all that enthused.
Before, you were saying that Trump’s crossover appeal would be what beats Hillary in the general (blue states in play like never before, etc.). Data appears to show Trump isn’t crossing over and not bringing new voters into the GOP.
So, you change your mind and your tune, and now you’re saying yes, Trump will win, but not because of crossover appeal, but because GOP base enthusiasm will now win the day.
Of course.
1 Like
Not at all. In open primaries he is getting more democrat votes than either Romney or McCain received. Also, keep in mind I said Hillary would lose for many reasons. I know you don’t want me to list them all so I will stop here.
Also, apparently in the Kentucky primary (tonight) the democrat voters are turning out in half the numbers they did eight years ago for Barack Obama. Once again the excitement is not there for Hillary.
This is an interesting article of exactly why more democrats have supported Trump than GOP candidates in the past:
This article mentions several states where democrats are becoming republicans:
Look, there is no such thing as a slam dunk in politics. Could all the democrats decide to vote for Hillary in the fall? Sure that could happen but I doubt it for a few reasons. Hillary is getting pushed all over the place by Bernie Sanders who has won the overwhelming majority of the past 20 some primaries. How disenfranchised will the Bernie supporters feel because of Hillary’s “super delegates”?
There are many other factors but over all I think (just a guess) that Trump will get more democrat votes than any republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
You know I keep hearing from Bernie people that he is winning everything then I look at the numbers. Super delegates aside, she is about 300 delegates ahead and has received over 3 million more actual votes. She is the democrat nominee.
True, but when you think about who she is running against it seems that she should be doing even better, no?
If a real third party ticket makes a splash, I could see this being decided by the House.
You know, I used to think so. But there are a lot of people who really believe all the crazy socialist bullshit Bernie says. Then there are those who like his “ideas,” but they don’t think them out to their obvious conclusion. Like who pays for it and am I a slave to the state?
If Bernie were 20 years younger I think we could be in serious trouble. This is why we need to get our shit together before the 2020 election. If the ship isn’t somewhat righted in the next four years, get ready for another “Democratic Socialist” to take a run at the White House.
1 Like
Perfectly stated Alrightmiami you hit it the nail on the head.
What do you guys think? Haven’t had a chance to research the names on the list yet.
Any one of the Justices mentioned in the article would be a whole lot better than the left wing loons that Hillary would most assuredly appoint.
They were all appointed by either GW Bush or a conservative Governor.
The gentleman who has my particular vote…is starting to make a legitimate move.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/19/gary-johnson-sees-huge-jump-new-poll-bernie-supporters/
For those of you who think he has no chance…behold TEH MONIEZ.
Also of note, David was the Libertarian Vice-President candidate in 1980, so this is not unprecedented.
4 Likes
Solid citizen this one is: