Straight Dope Message Board

[nearwildheaven]

Haven't read the thread, and don't need to.

The answer is: Oh, hell no.

We had Lyndon LaRouche, who finally kicked off a year or two ago. 51

[El_Kabong]

No, but I would hope that the primary system would weed such a person out before they became the only (D) choice in the general. Yeah, I know that didn't work in Trump's case, but I just don't think that there are sufficient enraged Ds to blow the whole system up the way the MAGAts did. 52

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

If the consequences is more conservative justices that will overturn roe v wade, etc. then most Democrats would go ahead and hold their nose and vote for him.

This is what I've been saying - it's easy for people to airily say "I'll go with character rather than policy" when such a choice isn't what they are actually facing in real life. When it's a starkly real matter, though, almost every pragmatic voter would pick the asshole who shares their vision and agenda.

I did not vote for Trump, but I wouldn't blame any Democrat in the least for voting for a Democratic Trump. 53

[divemaster]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Fighting the hypothetical on this one. One can't be a corrupt asshole AND champion progressive causes.

Of course you can. Edwin Edwards was a very, very crooked and corrupt politician. Everyone knew it and many voted for him anyway. Enough to get him 8 years as a state legislator and 16 years as governor. You might call him a populist, rather than a progressive, but he was beloved by voters both black and white. No "Dixicrat" he; Edwards was a huge champion of civil rights and was known for appointing many blacks and women to high positions in his administration. He was one of the few Southern politicians to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He threw money at all sorts of social causes all over the state of Louisiana. Democrats loved him.

So many jokes about "yes, he'll pick your pocket but you can't help but smile while he does it;" and "vote for the crook--it's important." Edwards was the one who admitted "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." Sound like someone we know?

Every aspect of every administration he ran was corrupt to the core. He finally, finally, was indicted (racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud) and sent to federal prison. He also was known for cruising LSU sorority row to pick up college girls (his third wife is over 50 years younger than him).

Given after all of this; after being released from prison; he won a primary election for congress. Lost in the run-off, but he still got votes. 54

[Wesley Clark]

Democrats and republicans are not the same.

86% of whites who scored highest in authoritarianism voted for Trump in 2016. Which means at most, 14% of whites scoring high in authoritarianism voted for Clinton (it was even less, some of those 14% voted third party).

The GOP has an authoritarianism problem. The democratic party does not. You're basically asking 'since the party where ~90% of authoritarians belong is a party that supports authoritarian attitudes, would the party where 10% of authoritarians belong also support authoritarian attitudes'? The answer is no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...nism#Attitudes 55

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Velocity

This is what I've been saying - it's easy for people to airily say "I'll go with character rather than policy" when such a choice isn't what they are actually facing in real life. When it's a starkly real matter, though, almost every pragmatic voter would pick the asshole who shares their vision and agenda.

I did not vote for Trump, but I wouldn't blame any Democrat in the least for voting for a Democratic Trump.

Yes but a democratic trump would not win the primary. 56

[TimfromNapa]

Originally Posted by asahi

Suppose the Dems had a lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain. Suppose you knew he would advocate using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies.

You really don't think of him as someone who's fit for office, yet you know that, inexplicably, he garners about 40-45% of the vote no matter what. Moreover, you know that he religiously supports the progressive cause: rubber stamps liberal judges, toughens regulations on business for the public good, promises to pump up welfare spending, promises to protect immigrants rights, and do all the things that progressives want.

Would you vote for that guy knowing all his baggage?

No. I'd like to see his/her head on a silver platter and the rest fed to the lions. 57

[QuickSilver]

n/m 58

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by asahi

Suppose the Dems had a lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain. Suppose you knew he would advocate using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies.

You really don't think of him as someone who's fit for office, yet you know that, inexplicably, he garners about 40-45% of the vote no matter what. Moreover, you know that he religiously supports the progressive cause: rubber stamps liberal judges, toughens regulations on business for the public good, promises to pump up welfare spending, promises to protect immigrants rights, and do all the things that progressives want.

Would you vote for that guy knowing all his baggage?

Hmmmm. Let's see....

Defend a lying grifting traitor JUST because he was a Dem?

Lemme think...

How about FUCK NO. 59

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Yes but a democratic trump would not win the primary.

Sure, but I presume the OP's hypothetical is one in which you face a choice of a Democratic Trump vs. Republican Hillary in a general election. In which case I would bet big money that at least 70% of Democrats would still vote for Trump(D). Maybe not to the extent that 90% of Republicans voted for Trump(R) in real life, but most Democrats aren't going to fall on their swords and commit political suicide, especially considering that, generally speaking, the consequences of electoral defeat are more severe for liberals than conservatives. 60

[erysichthon]

Originally Posted by Sterling Archer

If it was a corrupt sleezebag like Rod Blagoevich vs Romney or Jon Kasich? I’d vote Republican.

Funny that you mention Blagojevich, because he's the first person that I think of whenever anyone claims that Democrats would be doing the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

I was living in Illinois at the time. I've been a Democrat all my life, and although I wasn't crazy about Blago, I voted for him in 2003. Well, he was a horrible governor right out of the gate—a total buffoon who cared only about himself. When he ran for reelection in 2006, I crossed party lines for the first time in my life and voted for his GOP opponent, Judy Topinka. She lost.

When Blago was arrested for trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat, the Democrats held supermajorities in both the state House and Senate. Did they defend him? Did they attack the Feds who arrested him? Did they insist that there was no harm done, because his attempted crime was unsuccessful? HELL NO! They quickly impeached his ass, got him out of office, and prohibited him from ever holding office in Illinois again. And the final vote was 59-0—no Democrats demeaned themselves by sticking up for the guy, the way Republicans are doing now with Trump.

So whenever anyone says the two parties are exactly the same, I tell them to go ask Rod. He's still in federal prison, which is where Trump belongs (but he'll never go there because he'll pardon himself before he leaves office). 61

[margin]

Originally Posted by divemaster

Of course you can. Edwin Edwards was a very, very crooked and corrupt politician. Everyone knew it and many voted for him anyway. Enough to get him 8 years as a state legislator and 16 years as governor. You might call him a populist, rather than a progressive, but he was beloved by voters both black and white. No "Dixicrat" he; Edwards was a huge champion of civil rights and was known for appointing many blacks and women to high positions in his administration. He was one of the few Southern politicians to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He threw money at all sorts of social causes all over the state of Louisiana. Democrats loved him.

So many jokes about "yes, he'll pick your pocket but you can't help but smile while he does it;" and "vote for the crook--it's important." Edwards was the one who admitted "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." Sound like someone we know?

Every aspect of every administration he ran was corrupt to the core. He finally, finally, was indicted (racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud) and sent to federal prison. He also was known for cruising LSU sorority row to pick up college girls (his third wife is over 50 years younger than him).

Given after all of this; after being released from prison; he won a primary election for congress. Lost in the run-off, but he still got votes.

Did he put kids in cages? Did he slobber over dictators? Did he call an entire nation rapists? Did he attack the only black president? Did he bar an entire religion? Did he endorse murder? Did he tell over 13,000 lies----many of them vicious and breathtakingly malicious----over three years? Did he attempt to strongarm a vulnerable nation to slander his political rival? I mean, I could go on, but pretending that Trump isn't a grotesquely vicious, petty, sleazy, crooked, dishonest, cruel, would-be murderet is disingenuous to say the least. 62

[Wesley Clark]

It's worth pointing out that Edwin Edward's won because his voting base was conservative whites in the south. Who are now trumps voting base. So that's not really a fair comparison because the people who voted for Edward's in the 1960s and trump today are the same kinds of people.

The modern democratic party is a coalition of liberals, out-groups and moderates. Would they vote for a criminal? As a last resort maybe but they'd hate doing it. 63

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

It's worth pointing out that Edwin Edward's won because his voting base was conservative whites in the south. Who are now trumps voting base. So that's not really a fair comparison because the people who voted for Edward's in the 1960s and trump today are the same kinds of people.

The modern democratic party is a coalition of liberals, out-groups and moderates. Would they vote for a criminal? As a last resort maybe but they'd hate doing it.

He would never get the nomination for president, but even so, I wouldn't defend him. And I could imagine voting for someone like that only if he were running against Trump.

Trump is very specifically a by-product of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were actually such a monster they could've nominated Rubio or Bush. But Trump is the logical conclusion of what that party has been doing nationally for the last few decades. (Edwards was just the by-product of regional cronyism.) Now Trump is such a stinking piece of shit that the Republicans have lost their sense of smell. 64

[Der Trihs]

The basic problem is that a "Democrat Trump" is a contradiction in terms. Somebody who acts like Trump is by definition acting against the causes the Democrats support. It's like a vegetarian electing somebody who wants to legalize and promote eating animals alive.

Originally Posted by divemaster

Of course you can. Edwin Edwards was a very, very crooked and corrupt politician. Everyone knew it and many voted for him anyway. Enough to get him 8 years as a state legislator and 16 years as governor. You might call him a populist, rather than a progressive, but he was beloved by voters both black and white. No "Dixicrat" he; Edwards was a huge champion of civil rights and was known for appointing many blacks and women to high positions in his administration. He was one of the few Southern politicians to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He threw money at all sorts of social causes all over the state of Louisiana.

In other words, not like Trump at all. If he was like Trump he'd hate civil rights of any kind, and he'd be trying to have black people imprisoned or executed, not putting them in high positions. He certainly wouldn't support voting rights.

In order to be like Trump someone has to be bigoted, incompetent, utterly selfish and dishonest, treacherous, stupid, and ignorant. He is fractally vile, horrible in every way on every level. Mere financial corruption is a sidenote to the sheer awfulness that is Trump. 65

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by asahi

Suppose the Dems had a lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain. Suppose you knew he would advocate using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies.

You really don't think of him as someone who's fit for office, yet you know that, inexplicably, he garners about 40-45% of the vote no matter what. Moreover, you know that he religiously supports the progressive cause: rubber stamps liberal judges, toughens regulations on business for the public good, promises to pump up welfare spending, promises to protect immigrants rights, and do all the things that progressives want.

Would you vote for that guy knowing all his baggage?

Fuck no.

Absolutely fuck no.

It says a lot about you that you assume the Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans are at this point, and you assume everyone else has jumped on the "fuck national interests and half the nation, I want my team to win" bandwagon. 66

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

Often we are forced to choose the lesser of evils. I would vote for a corrupt Democrat before I would vote for Trump if the Democrat could at least fake competence.

Much depends on the opponent. If it were a Republican like Mitt Romney, I would easily support them over a Trump-like Democrat (per above definition). The problem is that principled Republicans have gone the way of the dodo; they've all gone full Trump now.

Maybe this is Mitt's strategy, to be the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. But it would take a lot of Democratic malfeasance... a LOT... for me to reward the Republicans with any kind of conciliatory good faith after the last 4 years. 67

[divemaster]

Originally Posted by margin

Did he put kids in cages? Did he slobber over dictators? Did he call an entire nation rapists? Did he attack the only black president? Did he bar an entire religion? Did he endorse murder? Did he tell over 13,000 lies----many of them vicious and breathtakingly malicious----over three years? Did he attempt to strongarm a vulnerable nation to slander his political rival? I mean, I could go on, but pretending that Trump isn't a grotesquely vicious, petty, sleazy, crooked, dishonest, cruel, would-be murderet is disingenuous to say the least.

Where the hell did I mention Trump? Or defend Trump? I've never done that. Where did I "pretend" anything? Your response has nothing to do with my post. I was specifically addressing the claim that "One can't be a corrupt asshole and champion progressive causes." I was providing an example that, yes indeed, a politician who champions progressive causes can be a corrupt asshole.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

In other words, not like Trump at all. If he was like Trump he'd hate civil rights of any kind, and he'd be trying to have black people imprisoned or executed, not putting them in high positions. He certainly wouldn't support voting rights.

Same message to you. Reading comprehension. Try it.

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

It's worth pointing out that Edwin Edward's won because his voting base was conservative whites in the south.

Absolutely false. Edwards' primary voting base was blacks. To the tune of about 90-95% support. Conservative whites jumped to the Republican Party about the time Edwards was coming into prominence. Sure, he had enough high-level white support to keep him in power, but that was mostly due to cronyism and graft. 68

[divemaster]

Edwards' primary voting base was blacks. To the tune of about 90-95% support.

Well, and South Louisiana Cajuns/Creoles of course.

Anyway, I did not mean to sidetracks things this much. I just felt compelled to rebut a post stating that a progressive politician can't be a corrupt asshole. I'll admit that "populist" and "progressive" are not exactly the same, but Edwards, for his time, was quite progressive, especially when it came to matters of race.

Anyway, carry on with the hypothetical of the OP. I do find it an interesting discussion here. 69

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Fuck no.

Absolutely fuck no.

It says a lot about you that you assume the Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans are at this point, and you assume everyone else has jumped on the "fuck national interests and half the nation, I want my team to win" bandwagon.

Exactly. And fuck all the trumpies, projecting their bullshit onto us. 70

[Hamlet]

Suppose Democrat Trump had accomplished many of the goals of the Democrat party has had for a long time. He undid tax breaks for the super wealthy and *gasp* actually increased taxes on them, cut corporate welfare, enacted and empowered more environmental legislation, worked to decrease man made global warming, increased the minimum wage, rebuilt the department of education, cut the idiotic wall funding, worked toward more health care coverage toward all, increased infrastructure development, enacted real campaign finance reform, put more intelligent judges on the bench, enacted reasonable gun control legislation, and the rest. Suppose you had a Democrat Trump who accomplished for the party all the things Trump has done for the Republican party (judges, tax cuts for the rich, gutting the federal government, crackdown on immigration, roll back consumer protection, gut environmental protection, less governmental regulation of businesses, etc.)

Ummmmm, still no.

With Trump, Republicans have gotten so much of what they've wanted for a long time that they're willing to put up with pretty much anything. Democrats are better than that. 71

[margin]

Originally Posted by divemaster

Where the hell did I mention Trump? Or defend Trump? I've never done that. Where did I "pretend" anything? Your response has nothing to do with my post. I was specifically addressing the claim that "One can't be a corrupt asshole and champion progressive causes." I was providing an example that, yes indeed, a politician who champions progressive causes can be a corrupt asshole.



Same message to you. Reading comprehension. Try it.




Absolutely false. Edwards' primary voting base was blacks. To the tune of about 90-95% support. Conservative whites jumped to the Republican Party about the time Edwards was coming into prominence. Sure, he had enough high-level white support to keep him in power, but that was mostly due to cronyism and graft.

Yeah, you OFFERED up this Edwards guy and he's NOTHING like Trump, so stop whining. 72

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by divemaster

Absolutely false. Edwards' primary voting base was blacks. To the tune of about 90-95% support. Conservative whites jumped to the Republican Party about the time Edwards was coming into prominence. Sure, he had enough high-level white support to keep him in power, but that was mostly due to cronyism and graft.

It should be noted that, the 2nd time around, Edwards' opponent was David Duke. And conservative white Louisianans pretty overwhelmingly supported Duke. So it wasn't like Edwards was facing some average Republican -- he was facing an open white supremacist... and Duke came pretty close to winning!

That was an early indication of what kind of politicians conservative white Americans are willing to support. 73

[D_Odds]

Originally Posted by margin

Yeah, you OFFERED up this Edwards guy and he's NOTHING like Trump, so stop whining.

In divemaster's 1st post, he quoted the statement to which he was responding, then explained it again for you, and both times you ignored it. Try reading rather than projecting.

Democrats can be as corrupt and still get elected to office over and over again. We really haven't seen Democrats as bad as Republicans at the Federal level, but that might just mean they're smarter and better at hiding it. The baseness of Trump is at an altogether different level. A Democrat Trump, I think, would get more support than s/he should, but I don't think would pass the primaries. I certainly believe one could be electable for state offices, and possibly the House. 74

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Llama Llogophile

I’m an independent, usually vote Dem. A friend of mine is conservative and we once had a memorable conversation back in the Obama days.

The president had done something he didn’t like and challenged me to defend it. I said I couldn’t because I thought it was a bad policy too. He seemed surprised and I asked, “Why do you expect me to defend a policy I don’t agree with?”

He was visibly taken aback that I didn’t choose to defend someone I voted for in that instance. I don’t see why on Earth I would, and therein may lie a major difference between people.

Today I would also point to people like Al Franken and John Edwards - my “side”, such as it is, can and will cast off inappropriate people. Sometimes too soon, actually, but that’s another discussion.

Republicans today (speaking very broadly) are far more tribal than Democrats are - they may have intraparty squabbles but woe betide anyone outside the group who dares to criticize a member of the tribe. And they struggle to understand that the Democrats are not like that. So not only did they spend the Obama administration obstructing everything and making up fake scandals to try to bring him down, they now assume that any attempts to obstruct Trump's agenda or nominees and any investigations are similarly purely partisan in nature rather than merit-based.

Would I vote for a corrupt Democrat over a Republican? Depends on the Republican and indeed the Democrat. So I might do if I genuinely thought the Democrat was the least worst option...but I certainly wouldn't make excuses for the Democrat's corruption. (Plus, I've been a Independent for years).

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

It depends on the consequences.

If the consequences is more conservative justices that will overturn roe v wade, etc. then most Democrats would go ahead and hold their nose and vote for him.

Some voters seem to be willing to tolerate morally compromised politicians to advance their politics. See Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton's moral failings were largely personal. We knew he was a cheating horndog when he was first elected and I remember at the time saying that I hoped Hillary was giving him a boot to the groin on a regular basis for it, but we weren't electing him Pope and there was no evidence of actual political corruption. Plus, unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't tend to run on a platform of moral purity, family values and pretending to be 'holier than thou' so there wasn't the level of overt hypocrisy as when, say, Newt Gingrich had multiple mistresses. I'm not defending Bill's cheating; I just always thought that was his and Hillary's business. Likewise, it's not that Trump has cheated on all his wives that bothers me; it's the hypocrisy of his evangelical supporters and his party at large that does (plus the campaign-related payments for the women's silence).

Democrats have had plenty of corrupt politicians over the years; there is no arguing with that. But in recent years the Democrats have made more of an effort to clean house, whereas the Republicans of late seem to be doubling down. I'm sure there are plenty of venal local Democrats but for a Trump to rise to the top he could only do so as a Republican.

[I used to be a big Bob Dole supporter, and frankly I miss the days when I believed both parties were fielding reasonably honorable candidates. Maybe I was just more naïve back then.) 75

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Fuck no.

Absolutely fuck no.

It says a lot about you that you assume the Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans are at this point, and you assume everyone else has jumped on the "fuck national interests and half the nation, I want my team to win" bandwagon.

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Exactly. And fuck all the trumpies, projecting their bullshit onto us.

So, what? You'd vote for a squeaky clean Republican candidate that ran on the exact opposite of all those positions? 76

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The basic problem is that a "Democrat Trump" is a contradiction in terms. Somebody who acts like Trump is by definition acting against the causes the Democrats support.

Someone acting like Trump is now is acting against the causes Democrats support. But I remain convinced Trump has no ideology, he's just a fair weather sociopath. You might be forgetting he was a registered member of the Democratic Party from 2001-2009. I do think he has always been a crook, a pig and somewhat racist, but his current political virulence I'm pretty convinced is just meat for the base. Nasty populism and demagoguery works for him so he's all in. It's just another con and a handy cover for his political and administrative incoherence. 77

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by manson1972

So, what? You'd vote for a squeaky clean Republican candidate that ran on the exact opposite of all those positions?

As opposed to supporting a fascistic fucking TRAITOR?


Yes. 78

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

As opposed to supporting a fascistic fucking TRAITOR?


Yes.

The candidate in the hypothetical was:

"Suppose the Dems had a lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain. Suppose you knew he would advocate using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies"

Not sure how you get "fascistic fucking TRAITOR" out of that. 79

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Suppose Democrat Trump had accomplished many of the goals of the Democrat party has had for a long time. He undid tax breaks for the super wealthy and *gasp* actually increased taxes on them, cut corporate welfare, enacted and empowered more environmental legislation, worked to decrease man made global warming, increased the minimum wage, rebuilt the department of education, cut the idiotic wall funding, worked toward more health care coverage toward all, increased infrastructure development, enacted real campaign finance reform, put more intelligent judges on the bench, enacted reasonable gun control legislation, and the rest. Suppose you had a Democrat Trump who accomplished for the party all the things Trump has done for the Republican party (judges, tax cuts for the rich, gutting the federal government, crackdown on immigration, roll back consumer protection, gut environmental protection, less governmental regulation of businesses, etc.)

"Thanks for all your hard work! Now, regarding your obstruction of justice and collusion with foreign powers' interference with our election processes, we'll be expediting your impeachment so that the treason trials can be brought to bear with no undo delay!" 80

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by manson1972

The candidate in the hypothetical was:

"Suppose the Dems had a lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain. Suppose you knew he would advocate using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies"

Not sure how you get "fascistic fucking TRAITOR" out of that.

"... lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain …" and " ...using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies … "

Meaning TRUMP, obviously. 81

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

"... lunatic demagogue who you knew was corrupt to the core and would use the office for personal gain …" and " ...using agencies to reward his loyalists and punish his enemies … "

Meaning TRUMP, obviously.

Perhaps you are just not being honest with yourself.

If there was a D candidate who blatantly used the office for personal gain, but during his term, would magically somehow ensure every single person in America had access to free medical care, and he/she was running against a R candidate who was the best morally correct person in his/her own behavior, but during his/her term would magically kick out of America every non-white person that was here, then yeah, I'd vote for the D candidate.

I find it unlikely that you wouldn't. 82

[Lightnin']

God no.

Of course, a Democrat Trump wouldn't be elected in the first place. 83

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Perhaps you are just not being honest with yourself.

If there was a D candidate who blatantly used the office for personal gain, but during his term, would magically somehow ensure every single person in America had access to free medical care, and he/she was running against a R candidate who was the best morally correct person in his/her own behavior, but during his/her term would magically kick out of America every non-white person that was here, then yeah, I'd vote for the D candidate.

I find it unlikely that you wouldn't.

Are you presuming we're making this determination before he's gotten into office and done his magic, or after? 84

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Are you presuming we're making this determination before he's gotten into office and done his magic, or after?

My hypothetical assumes that those things WILL happen after the election. 85

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

Someone acting like Trump is now is acting against the causes Democrats support. But I remain convinced Trump has no ideology, he's just a fair weather sociopath. You might be forgetting he was a registered member of the Democratic Party from 2001-2009. I do think he has always been a crook, a pig and somewhat racist, but his current political virulence I'm pretty convinced is just meat for the base. Nasty populism and demagoguery works for him so he's all in. It's just another con and a handy cover for his political and administrative incoherence.

This is a great point. It's easy to imagine an alt-history where McCain won in 2008, and went on to mock Trump in the same way that Obama did. In that alternate history, Trump could have decided to burn the country down in order to destroy McCain's legacy. He could have run as a populist on the Democratic ticket, supporting many Democratic causes just as hypocritically as he's supported Republican causes. It'd be trivial for him to support:

-Reducing college costs (even while promoting his own sham "university")
-Promoting labor rights (even while being terrible to his own workers)
-Expanding reproductive freedom (even while sexually assaulting women)
-Expanding environmental protections

In that alt-earth, he'd still be a protectionist, and he'd gain support from Democrats by including environmental and labor standards in trade treaties. He'd promise to appoint judges that were strong on civil rights protections.

Trump doesn't believe shit, except for believing his own myth. It's not hard at all to imagine him having chosen to run as a Democrat.

And it's not hard to imagine a lot of Democrats who personally loathe him deciding to Mitch McConnell it up if he won, backing him in public because they're able to get a lot of what they want under him. 86

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by manson1972

If there was a D candidate who blatantly used the office for personal gain, but during his term, would magically somehow ensure every single person in America had access to free medical care, and he/she was running against a R candidate who was the best morally correct person in his/her own behavior, but during his/her term would magically kick out of America every non-white person that was here, then yeah, I'd vote for the D candidate.

That hypothetical Democrat is not like Trump, however. Trump considers the only thing of value in the universe to be himself, and hates the very thought of anything happening that benefits anyone else. Such a person would never "ensure every single person in America had access to free medical care", because that means other people are being helped and he hates that.

And for that matter a "morally correct person" would never be a Republican; being a good person is incompatible with being a Republican in the modern party. It's one logically impossible person running against another logically impossible person. 87

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by manson1972

My hypothetical assumes that those things WILL happen after the election.

So your hypothetical assumes that the democrat voters are omniscient regarding future events, then? This may be fighting the hypothetical, but that sounds a little bit unrealistic.

If the dude is already an obviously terrible person and/or criminal before he's accomplished anything, then that's one case.

If the dude accomplishes a bunch of stuff and then his awfulness and malfeasance comes to light, that's another.

But I'm not really buying the "we just know that he's going to accomplish great things" premise. 88

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by manson1972

My hypothetical assumes that those things WILL happen after the election.

I wouldn't have to worry … I'd die of shock 89

[doreen]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Perhaps you are just not being honest with yourself.

If there was a D candidate who blatantly used the office for personal gain, but during his term, would magically somehow ensure every single person in America had access to free medical care, and he/she was running against a R candidate who was the best morally correct person in his/her own behavior, but during his/her term would magically kick out of America every non-white person that was here, then yeah, I'd vote for the D candidate.

I find it unlikely that you wouldn't.

Here's my problem with that- if I know before the election that he's blatantly going to use the office for personal gain, I have no real reason to believe that he's going to make sure everyone in America has access to free medical care. Sure, he might say it for long enough to be elected, and may pretend to work on it for long enough to run a re-election campaign.But that doesn't mean he'll really do it, and if he's never held political office or down any sort of work that would make his views known, I have no reason to believe such a corrupt person would keep those promises. Which is why I kind of wonder what a second Trump term would like (although not enough to hope for one). Because I don't think he necessarily cares about a lot of the things he's doing and saying except for those that benefit him personally. I think it's just a matter of him saying and doing what he thinks will get him re-elected - and if he gets a second term, that won't matter anymore. I mean, if he ever gave a moment's thought to abortion prior to his campaign, he might well be on the pro-choice side. You'll often see people say that the Republicans/Evangelical Christians made a deal with the devil to keep Hilary from being elected- but maybe it was a two-sided deal, where Trump takes positions and supports policies he's not really in favor of in order to the elected. And when getting elected no longer matters, I have no idea what he will do. 90

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by manson1972

So, what? You'd vote for a squeaky clean Republican candidate that ran on the exact opposite of all those positions?

A number of years ago a Democratic candidate in my area was caught in various sorts of fraud, including claiming residence in two different states with two different sets of ID's/driver's license/etc., using her dead father's name to commit property tax and SS fraud, and so forth. The largely black, urban, democratic area voted in a a highly conservative, Republican, Bible-thumping, rural white guy to replace her. Why? Because the lady was a lying, thieving piece of shit and the white guy was going to do the job without robbing the kitty blind.

So yes, it is possible for liberal Democrat voters to vote in a conservative Republican with many differing views in preference to a lying sack of thieving shit.

Why are you so amazed by that? 91

[Author Balk]

From a middle of the road person...
Would I vote for someone I disagree with on issues? Yes, I do that all the time, since I don't agree with anybody on all issues.
Would I vote for someone that has an offensive personality? I might, depending on how they do the job. I have heard Republicans say they don't like Trump, but he is doing a good job.
Would I vote for someone that has offensive policies? No.
And Trump is a trifecta.
While I have voted about 50-50 in the past, I may never vote Republican again. Not because of Trump, but that 80-90 percent of Republicans approve of him. If the Democratic party changes so much that a Democrat version of Trump is popular to the party, then I wouldn't vote Democrat again. 92

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

So yes, it is possible for liberal Democrat voters to vote in a conservative Republican with many differing views in preference to a lying sack of thieving shit.

I think this escapes a lot of folks who prioritize platform ahead of ethics (whether consciously or no). For some of us, demonstrable moral & ethical integrity is at least as important as the platform a candidate assures us they will advance. For instance, sane conservatives I know may not believe in a blanket policy of unbillable and unlimited healthcare for everyone regardless of whether or not they contribute anything to society, but (and this is what I'm on about) they also don't believe in marginalizing or outright screwing the poor & disabled while making things easier for folks who already have sufficient resources to live comfortably for generations.

Originally Posted by Author Balk

While I have voted about 50-50 in the past, I may never vote Republican again. Not because of Trump, but that 80-90 percent of Republicans approve of him.

This. Campaigning as a Republican no longer means "I'm a social/fiscal conservative." I means, "I accept and identify with this lockstepping, anti-intellectual party." 93

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The basic problem is that a "Democrat Trump" is a contradiction in terms. Somebody who acts like Trump is by definition acting against the causes the Democrats support. It's like a vegetarian electing somebody who wants to legalize and promote eating animals alive.

In other words, not like Trump at all. If he was like Trump he'd hate civil rights of any kind, and he'd be trying to have black people imprisoned or executed, not putting them in high positions. He certainly wouldn't support voting rights.

In order to be like Trump someone has to be bigoted, incompetent, utterly selfish and dishonest, treacherous, stupid, and ignorant. He is fractally vile, horrible in every way on every level. Mere financial corruption is a sidenote to the sheer awfulness that is Trump.

Just to piggy back on this, anyone who is that bad, who lies constantly just to do it, whose word isn't worth shit, who is famous for never having honored a single deal in his life, will get a "fuck whatever platform" he has or promises he makes, because JUST like Trump, he has no intention of following through or keeping his worthless word.

So, if there was a Democrat Trump out there, he'd get a "fuck you" no matter what he says. 94

[MarvinKitFox]

Originally Posted by dalej42

No. We can do better.

Never have, as the OP's description matches every.single.us.president.EVER.


The fundamental problem arises in the fact that the US president is NOT the most suitable person for the job, nor the best qualified, etc..
The winner of the race is THE BEST SHOWMAN. 95

[adaher]

There will probably never be a Democrat Trump, but I can definitely see some aspects of Trump showing up in a future Democratic President, such as contempt for constitutional norms(Warren and Sanders already nod in that direction), personal corruption(common among politicians in general), irrationality/senility(could happen with any of the 70-somethings running), mean spiritedness, or general ineffectiveness. It's just unusual to have all that in one President. But I doubt many Democrats would hold it against a Democratic President who had just one or two of those attributes. Partisanship is a powerful drug and we see it in the way some Democratic Presidents who have done some pretty awful things(FDR, LBJ), are held up as the heroes of the party. Democrats will put up with a lot if a President delivers big legislatively. 96

[Chronos]

MarvinKitFox, the OP's description matches only a few US presidents. The criticism of Trump is not that he's not perfect, or not the best man for the job. As you point out, no president has been perfect, and depending on how you define "best for the job", you can argue that none of them were that, too. But Trump is much worse than that. Most Presidents, while not being perfect, still cared about the well-being of the country as a whole. Trump doesn't, at all. 97

[Chronos]

adaher, FDR is complicated. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest Presidents we've had. He was also a very good President (which is a completely different measure than greatness). And yet, despite that, he was probably also the greatest threat our system of government has ever faced, up to Trump. A benevolent dictatorship can do a lot of good for a country... while it lasts.

LBJ, on the other hand, I think even his most fervent supporters (i.e., those who support the actions he took) would acknowledge that he was a complete rat bastard. 98

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Chronos

MarvinKitFox, the OP's description matches only a few US presidents. The criticism of Trump is not that he's not perfect, or not the best man for the job. As you point out, no president has been perfect, and depending on how you define "best for the job", you can argue that none of them were that, too. But Trump is much worse than that. Most Presidents, while not being perfect, still cared about the well-being of the country as a whole. Trump doesn't, at all.

This. He only gives a damn about himself, and he single-handedly has ALL the worst "qualities" of ALL previous presidents and wanna-be presidents. He has already sold us out many times, to benefit himself and Russia. 99