I actually think you may be right, since McCain is now a guy who lost an election and/or embarrassed the party, and Trump is the up-and-coming “say it like it is” guy. Memories are short, and FoxNews loves a frontrunner.
I think he’ll stay in, and he’s already made excuses that the paperwork doesn’t allow him to express his true assets, so when the “official papers” are filed, he’ll tell us all what he reports is artificially reduced. But he won’t last once the actual voting starts.
What will matter, in regards Trump, is how he frames the issues. So far, he’s created an unwarranted scare on immigration, thereby setting the default GOP position on immigration reform. What well will he poison next?
[QUOTE=adaher]
FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t want southern votes?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure they did. Southern Black votes. To replace the white racists they losts when they started talking in favor of civil rights. Which is why they tried to make it easier for Southern Blacks to vote. That, and it was the right thing to do. Which no doubt improved their support among other conscientious voters.
But they also surely knew that they were alienating racist voters on a fundamental level, and they didn’t care. I suppose it is possible that there were racists who held their nose and voted for FDR, JFK, or LBJ, but I suspect that there were a lot more who, like Strom Thurmound in 1948 and 1964, or George Wallace in 1968, switched parties.
Nice try, well, it was a mediocre try, anyway. It appears that the media outlets are choosing to ignore the other candidates in the races. Their choice.
Three weeks before the 1960 election Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested during a Civil Rights demonstration. Kennedy called Coretta King and offered his support. Nixon said nothing. Martin Luther King, Sr. endorsed Kennedy, which may have turned enough black votes in key states to give Kennedy the victory.
No. It is the job of most politicians to form a governing majority, maybe 60%. Alienating vast swaths of the population is part of the job description. Admittedly, the Presidency is a little different: Presidents are suppose to be diplomats and care about the entire populace.
But if your contention was correct, the Republican party establishment would not have rhetorically excommunicated David Duke back in the 1990s. But they did.
OP: It’s straightforward to write off 10% of your supporters, many of whom won’t vote for you anyway. 30% is harder. 70% is impossible.
But to reshape adaher’s argument, direct attacks on a group of voters tend to alienate potential supporters. IMHO, Republicans could garner a fair amount of Latino support by emphasizing family, hard work, religious piety and low taxes. Maybe not 65% support. But certainly 30-45%. But if you attack them directly you lose your audience. Similarly for Jeb to say to bigots, “I don’t want your support”, isn’t a winning strategy unless he’s sure and he is clear that he is attacking a 1% fringe. Jeb could however use strong language against Trump or even against unnamed demagogues. He hasn’t done so because of the preceding paragraph, IMHO.
doorhinge, if you can show me one, just one, politician who’s cracking down on Canadians staying past the term of their visa, then I’ll concede that there’s a non-racist element to this whole immigration brouhaha. Because those guys are illegal immigrants too, right?
Overstaying a visa is not quite the same as skulking across the border in dead of night or packed inside an 18-wheeler.
For one thing, people here on a visa have generally been vetted for criminal history, employment or training while here, and so forth, and are therefore regarded as much less likely to pose a criminal threat or wind up in need of taxpayer assistance.
Canada doesn’t seem to have much in the way of vicious drug cartels seeking to expand their territory either, so there’s less concern over drug cartels and their concomitant brutality when it comes to Canadians as well.
Except we are seeing a loon infestation on the right. With a nod to McCain who brought that loon Sarah Palin, the gift that keeps on giving to the national stage, she weighed in on Trumps’ put downs and called both McCain and Trump “Heros”
Nice cop out. Sort of like when the Swiftboaters said they are sure John Kerry was a nice man.
But then she’s clearly on the side of the bombast in chief when she slams “career politicians” and we’re not crazies, (responding to McCain’s characterization of the crowd that went to hear Trump in Arizona) …her words
*** "We’re watching career politicians throw away our kids’ future through bankrupting public budgets and ripping open our porous borders which, obvious to all us non-politicians, puts us at great risk. Everywhere I go, hard-working patriotic Americans – not “crazies” or “wacko birds” – ask me to pass on to Mr. Trump encouragement to keep educating the masses about true ramifications of illegal immigration, and in general the real state of our union.***
So while she tries real hard to put up an old picture of McCain as the “war hero” she can’t help but turn the knife. Lovely party of fear and loathing.
Sooooo, the immigration reform bill is racist? It increases border security and requires immigrants to learn English. Not only that, but voter support for immigration reform is based heavily on these conditions. Is America simply a racist country? And if so, should Democrats say they don’t want our votes?
Denouncing racist candidates is different from denouncing racist voters. I contend that no party has ever done that. There has never been an election where both parties didn’t work hard to win racist votes. Although not technically racism, BIll Clinton touted his signing of DOMA on Christian radio during the 1996 campaign. There is no question at all that he was trying to appeal to anti-gay bigotry:
You can denounce racist policies. You can denounce racist candidates. You can denounce racism in society. You can even call out specific racists who aren’t politicians. What you can’t do, and get away with it, is say that you don’t want racist people to vote for you, especially given Democrats’ modern interpretation of racist behavior, which pretty much encompasses everyone from West Virginia rednecks to Ivy League professors:
Given Democrats’ worldview, if they truly didn’t want racist votes, they’d lose 100% of the white vote. Or do Democrats have a shifting definition of racism, depending on what kind of advantage they are trying to gain?
Now we’re in agreement. Jeb attacked Trump in pretty personal terms. Hard not to, when Trumps’ statement was regarded as an attack on his wife and children. So I’m not sure what else anyone would expect from Jeb. The Bushes have a long history, with a lot of black marks on them. Hostility to Latinos has never been one of them, and they’ve gone further, fighting for a humane immigration policy against staunch opposition from within the party.
Ok, you’re shifting your argument a little. I objected to the idea that attacking a group of voters offends principles of democracy. I hope you agree with me on that narrow point.
We both agree that politicians can attack other public figures representing a point of view, even if they are not politicians. Gingrich attacks “Hollywood”. On occasion Bill Clinton would attack parts of his base: see the Sister Souljah incident.
It’s harder to find instances of attacking voters. I’m not sure about the reason. Part of it is rhetorical: if you are attacking something that nobody in public life declares, it sounds like a straw man argument. But it’s also true that politicians don’t like to needlessly piss people off.
I suspect it’s possible to vilify groups that you think will never support you. FDR: “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.” Note the phrase: forces. Sort of blurs things.
Better examples are those of the GOP, when they vilify recipients of welfare in order to win certain blocks with discontented voters, some of whom respond to racially charged rhetoric. But that’s still a little different from saying, “I don’t want your support.”
No, I still stand by that, unless the group is so small as to not be relevant. Since we do live in a democracy, the people decide, and denouncing the people is not consistent with principles of democracy. That’s not the same as disagreeing with the people and encouraging them to change. JFK spoke eloquently about equal rights when he visited the South during his term of office. He did not pander to the racists. But he limited negative criticism to elected leaders, not the electorate itself. And he certainly didn’t tell segregationists that he didn’t want their votes. Nor did he support primary challenges to segregationist Democrats in Congressional races.
Exactly. That would be foolish. Also, FDR was vilifying certain people for their actions and for being his political opponents. Vilifying your political opponents is fine, you already aren’t getting their votes. But FDR happily accepted support from the captains of industry and finance when it was offered. Plus FDR wasn’t really trying to send the message, “I don’t like these voters”, he was trying to portray himself as an underdog fighting for the common man.
Even GOP candidates, when they criticize “welfare queens”, they aren’t asking welfare queens to not vote for them and certainly aren’t asking welfare recipients who do not take advantage of the taxpayers to not vote for them. Without at least some support from welfare recipients, the GOP would not win elections. In part they are trying to pit the majority of welfare recipients against the minority. Maybe there’d be more money to go around if there was less fraud.
I wasn’t sure which of the three Trump threads to put this comment in, but since it’s more about his supporters I’ll put it here.
I normally listen to NPR in the morning but today it didn’t hook me so I switched over to the local conservative talk station. The host was going on about how wrong Trump was to claim that McCain wasn’t a war hero. There are plenty of other reasons not to like McCain but he was a true hero, etc. Then the host took some calls.
Oh my God, the Trump supporters came out of the wall. The first caller said he support Trump because DT “says what he believes, unlike Hillary Clinton.” The second said blamed the media for piling on Trump because after all, everything he said was true.
Then the third caller said “Trump is not afraid to speak the truth.” The host about lost it. “The problem with Trump is that he’s also not afraid to speak the un-truth!” he said. He’ll say things that are not true! And I’m going to tell you when he says things that are true and when they are not!" It was beautiful to see this despicable host and his disciples turn against each other.
One guy did call to speak against Trump though. “He wasn’t even a Republican until the early 2000’s. He supports single-payer healthcare! He even supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion!”
Pointing this out to conservatives isn’t particularly convincing. It only confirms the CT that Dems want open borders for easy votes and to play identity politics against Republicans.
You know all of those phone calls are carefully screened by a producer right? They purposefully put all of those Trump supporters through and hung up on anybody else (well except for that last guy you mentioned, gotta keep some balance).
So, only some older long-term residents are exempted. Given the number of ESL classes offered in my diverse city, most immigrants know that English is their path to success.
How about the number of deportations by FY ? I’m not proud but President Obama hasn’t been shy. (You can find other graphs at more xenophobic sites.)
Of course, your ignorant racist xenophobes are easily fooled & won’t know this.
Then go look at the comment sections of RedState and National Review Online. It’s the same there: the bloggers are denouncing Trump, while the majority of the commenters are strenuously defending him. For me as a Democrat, it’s a popcorn fest.
I am crossing my fingers hoping that polls in the next few days don’t show him cratering. He certainly was surging before the McCain comments:
Even better:
I would be surprised if he *doesn’t *run as a third party candidate. I mean, do we think this guy has *less *ego and hubris than Ross Perot? He’s already tanked his mainstream business prospects–that ship has sailed–so what does he have to lose?
