I don’t think this could hep him. Those who would be turned on by this further proof that he is an outsider are already firmly in his camp. As far as it allowing him to tack to the middle, given that the choice is him versus Clinton, I doubt that any of the red dog Conservatives will actually turn against him.
Those who do turn against him are really turning because of his lack of conservatism it’s that they realize that if he were elected he would be a disaster for the country, and their party would get the blame. Now in order to oppose him they have to mouth the words that he’s not conservative enough, but that’s just to maintain their more conservative than thou credentials, while opposing him.
But in the end enough red dogs will support him that it won’t look like a moderate. In particular since moderation in anything is the antithesis of his campaign.
The other two do mention it on their website’s home pages, but they certainly don’t highlight their party affiliation. How will your basic, ordinary voter know which ballot to ask for at the primary election in August?
I think being repudiated by George Will or other Republican pundits won’t make a difference. Being repudiated by Republicans in office like McConnell or Ryan would have a much greater impact, but that’s not going to happen.
Yes, Vermont showed the limits of that support. Single payer means higher taxes or less health care and the stakeholders who already have health care they like(Which in Vermont was something like 90% already) aren’t going to be having it.
Now a public option, that was always possible, so long as it was a public option that competed on a level playing field with the private companies. If it was subsidized by tax dollars and had an implicit bailout guarantee, that’s just doing single payer by deceit.
I cannot in my lifetime remember a PResidential candidate who did not get at least nominal public support from their entire party.
Of course Republican repudiations are a terrible disaster for Trump. Sure, sure, he’s an outsider. Those people are already voting for him. They’re already being counted in the polls. Every GOP member who says “can’t get behind this guy” is taking votes from registered Republicans away from Trump, but represents another part of the party machine that will not be working for Trump in fundraising, events, awareness, GOTV, and ground game in general.
I agree that as Republicans go the likes of George Will don’t mean much. Will is long past the peak of his fame and appeals largely to Republicans who were already unlikely to support Trump. A repudiation from a Republican in office would be crushing, proportional to the importance of the office and its officeholder.
The only states I’d call safe for Trump at this point are the reliably Republican Western states. But by the same token, there are some states that should be safe for Clinton that aren’t, such as PA, WI, and MI. THose union and former union voters are quite winnable for Trump.
Maybe not even some of those; apparently Trump’s support in Utah, which IIRC was the reddest state in the Union in 2012, is terrible. Mormons dislike him, and Utah’s mostly Mormon, so he could lose it.
It’s not a huge loss (6 EVs) but it’s indicative of Trump’s problem, which is demographic groups with an unyielding hatred of him, whose support doesn’t rise or fall with the general trend the way it usually would.
I think you are correct in that his only hope is to flip rust belt states where white men can swing the vote, while simultaneously not losing disastrously elsewhere - he could lose Florida and make most of it up with Pennsylvania, for instance, but if he loses Florida AND Georgia AND Arizona AND Utah, he won’t be winning Pennsylvania or much at all. Exchanging Florida for PA and WI is possible only in a situation where he is not substantially behind in overall, nationwide polls. I’d disagree that Michigan is in play, but that’s just a feeling.
We don’t yet had any sort of substantive polling data from most states, of course.
It might not even be a hope. Trump is just a different kind of Republican so the states might not fall in as predictably as they normally do. I can see a map where Trump wins most of the Deep South, some western states, and nearly sweeps the Industrial Midwest except for Illinois and still loses. He’s particularly weak in Florida, where Clinton is quite popular, so Florida might not even be a swing state this year, while PA and MI are. But guess what else are looking like swing states? Georgia, and maybe even Texas. Trump’s up by an average of 5, pulling only 40%.
No, but union does mean “hostile to trade deals and in many cases, mass immigration”. I don’t think a single union voter believes Clinton is actually opposed to TPP or NAFTA.
As it stands, no, but those are the states that he could win if his overall poll numbers improve. Angry white men represent a lot of votes, and that’s Trump’s wheelhouse. As we saw in the Brexit vote, the angry working class vote can be tapped to vote against the establishment, even if they’re being sold a lemon.
If in fact the most recent poll is true, and Clinton leads by 12 points, of course Trump cannot win any battleground state at all, and would lose states like Arizona and Georgia in the bargain. But if he were to start winning the campaign, and could pull even or ahead of Clinton, the final map could look much different from the one we’ve seen since 1996; you could see Arizona go Democratic, while Pennsylvania - which Obama won by just 5.4 percent in 2012 - goes Republican. The battle lines aren’t drawn in the same places they were before.
Trump’s people are talking about not letting Republicans who have not endorsed him - like Cruz - speak at the convention. However Cruz has won enough states to be able to speak based on the rules. I wonder what happens to Texas if Trump gets the rules changed to block “Lyin’ Ted” from giving a speech. Could be interesting.
Of course, that was said about Reagan too. One thing about Trump that is not a house of cards is that his stance on trade is more in lockstep with the unions than Clinton’s. That’s going to be decisive to a lot of union households. And Clinton can just forget about the coal miners and probably oil workers as well.
Could also just be the thoughts of a man eager to emphasize his own importance.
Be that as it may, should dreadful problems arise for the Dems this election, they won’t be able to say you didn’t warn them. You’ve warned about every possible problem, and several other problems as well.