“… 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.
God no.
Of course, a Democrat Trump wouldn’t be elected in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t have to worry … I’d die of shock 
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.