If you believed the Democrats were going to re-take the House and Senate, would you vote for Donald Trump to support your principle?
It would be a challenge for me. If it was just a matter of the presidency I would vote for any non-Trump Republican (Cruz included) over Farrakhan, but with the Supreme court in the balance, it gets harder. Farrakhan could to some extent be held in check by a sane congress, or get impeached if worst comes to worst, but leaving conservatives in charge of the court for a generation is not so easily undone. It is for this reason I have sympathy for my brothers on the opposite side of the aisle who are going through this same dilemma.
That was just a typo. Fingers ahead of my brain, reflex, or something. I know the past is “cast.”
That’s really the telling thing; Trump’s base is the crowd of angry, disillusioned white people who trend toward being blue collar and somewhat less educated who feel like neither party really has their best interests at heart.
So they’re backing the one guy who bucks the system and who they feel represents them, as opposed to one that will favor minorities, immigrants and degenerates (Democrats) over themselves, or the one that favors rich people at the expense of the working man (Republicans).
Nearly every Trumpian outburst of vitriol and attack instead of apology is seen not as the dangerous and puerile behavior that it is, but rather as someone who’s not playing politics as traditional politicians do. He’s not pussy footing around what he thinks for fear of offending anyone, and doing Bill Clinton-style prevarication and lawyering about defining what or what isn’t sex. He’s “telling it like he sees it” and his not caring about consequences or opinion is seen as a good thing.
So unless Trump manages to somehow insult a non-Muslim Gold Star mother, or Jesus, there’s not much that would dissuade them from Trump support.
The supporters that should be ashamed of themselves are the ones who don’t particularly like Trump, but who have this cretinous notion that Clinton is SO bad that they’ll vote Republican to oppose her, even if someone as odious and terrible as Trump is their option. This is the worst sort of political group-think- politics isn’t a freaking culture war.
If the Democrats had nominated Al Sharpton and the Republicans had nominated Mitt Romney, I’d be voting for Romney.
To be clear, in the OP I took the existing Stein and turned her up to 11, crazier and worse than she is now. It’s a hypothetical. But not unmoored from reality as shown by my links. Her VP is a real piece of work.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
I would vote for McCain every day of the week and twice on Sunday if the opponent was Sharpton. Sharpton is probably the closest equivalent to Trump we have on the left. Romney would only get one Sunday vote. If it was Cruz I might have to give it some serious thought though, but would likely still vote Cruz. Rubio I would be upset about but would vote for. I would vote for Sharpton before Trump.
Thank you for your reply.
Presidents have the power of appointment. Trump is an outsider and presents himself as such. I don’t necessarily believe that his cabinet would consist of substantially more experienced people. That’s part of the problem. His foreign policy team is C-list. His economic advisory team -appointed yesterday- contains one economist. And Trump isn’t exactly a listener.
This is very bad.
That said, I strongly suspect that if someone as unbalanced as Steve King of Iowa was elected to the Presidency it would be dangerous for the country, but your argument presented in this post would be much more accurate. But for Trump, someone who has never held elective office and isn’t part of the Republican network, the usual rules don’t apply.
As for Clinton, every Democratic President is said to pursue a left wing agenda and none do. (Bernie Sanders would have. I’d say Reagan pursued a right wing agenda at the time, Bush II was neoconservative-friendly in his first term, and the remaining Republican Presidents linked well with the existing Congressional GOP.)
At this point Trump’s teams of experts are going to be thin, because there’s a considerable stigma in being associated with him and he’s unlikely to win anyway. If he actually won the election that calculus would change dramatically.
He also has very little interest in anything besides himself and his own greatness. I doubt if he would get involved in the nitty gritty of policy and legislation, and he would probably content himself with soundbites and broad positions and let experts deal with the details.
That’s highly dependent on what you term “left wing” and “right wing”, which is itself highly dependent on what your own position is on the left-right spectrum. 
I think Lyndon Johnson enacted a left wing agenda.
The thing I find hysterical is that rather than nominate someone who’ll be influenced by billionaire donors, they’ve just gone and nominated a billionaire. All they’ve done is cut out the middleman.
No. I am more aligned with congressional democrats than the GOP or a hypo leftie. A leftie pres plus dem congress equals mainstream dem laws which is okay. GOP congress plus trump equals GOP laws which is bad. I’d prefer a leftie prez to even a pretty moderate GOP prez when the congress is red because neither agenda will be accomplished.
If my aunt had wheels, she would be a bicycle.
Things are what they are, Trump is showing what he knows and the “experts” he knows, not what you or others wish them to be.
Do you understand what I wrote?
I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if there’s some tortuous explanation going on among them about how, Trump being a billionaire, isn’t in the pocket of special interest groups, etc… and how that’s a good thing, instead of just meaning he essentially IS a special interest group in his own right.
Make no mistake, this isn’t a carefully considered, well-reasoned choice being made by these folks who back him. It’s very much an emotional response to politicians who seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths, lie and prevaricate, all of which this crowd despises, and is something that Trump is perceived as not doing, despite being caught outright lying and making bullshit up.
I did, I don’t even think the calculus would change dramatically regarding the “quality” of experts he would seek. Indeed you only wrote just nonsence.
Your answer should have been “I didn’t”.
And should Trump win (something I really fear, Fotheringay-Phipps, eta: though he fears the left even more), there will be enough …competent… people willing to jump on the winner’s bandwagon. Always are. There are money and connections to be made. Whether a President Trump actually chooses/appoints anyone competent is another story.
Actually FWIW, ISTM that while the things Trump is saying and promising are, on the whole, a lot less truthful than those of the average politician, it’s also true that Trump is so clueless about these things that he has no idea how ridiculous a lot of the things he says are, and at the exact time that it pops into his head to say them, he may believe in them to an extent. In some cases, anyway.
OK, I guess the correct answer was no, you didn’t understand.
My point was that Trump wants the best experts that he can get but the experts themselves are not interested in signing on with his campaign, because the downside, in terms of being seen as a Trump supporter, is high, and the upside, in terms of the likelihood of actual power, is low. This calculus would change for these experts if there was an actual position being offered, and at that point Trump would be able to attract a higher level of expert. Therefore - and this is the crucial point, so pay close attention now - the level of experts that are part of Trump’s team now is not a good indicator of the level of expert that would be on his team if he actually won.
Some tough choices. Most of these, I’d probably just pick a random 3rd party candidate I know nothing about.
McCain >> Romney >>>> Sharpton > Rubio > Farrakhan/Trump/Cruz
Really can’t rate those last 3 anything other than equally disasterous, and I don’t know where I’d slot Stein. Maybe slightly ahead of Rubio? I’d have to dig deeper to decide that one, but fortunately I don’t have to.
Actually you only show to all that you do not understant what I did say. Your point was undestood. It is a silly one. Designed to ignore how dismal the choice of Trump it was for the Republicans (and for all of us if elected) and no, there is very little hope that the real experts would like to join Trump if he becomes president.