More interesting data: According to who Trumps’ donors are, he’s actually the most liberal Republican in the field.
I don’t envy you the job of spinning these large poll numbers for Trump. Its either that a large chunk of Republican voters are malicious and bigoted, or they are stupid and naive (although I would tend to guess all of the above is a good possibility). You are going with the latter. But when I lurk on Red State and NRO, I see hordes of commenters defending Trump and spewing bile.
Of course that’s part of Trump’s support. They just aren’t as numerous as Trump’s poll numbers suggest. It’s about media coverage and name recognition. In that way, he’s a lot like Clinton. A lot of her supporters just don’t know anybody else yet.
The GOP didn’t deal with the Tea Party proactively enough when they had the chance and now they’re left with a potential Ralph Nader situation (Not a Perot situation, who merely saved them from more humiliating losses than they had gone thru and whose “spoiler” smear was just a convenient face saving). But then again, I think the religious side of the GOP will eat away with Trump’s numbers and he’ll just get a big RNC spot on illegal immigration, like Pat Buchanan got in 1992 for social issues. If the GOP hadn’t become split on illegals, or gave Hispanics more tea party time, they’d have less of a problem.
(post shortened)
The voters made the Tea Party what it is. Some voters rejected the usual party politics and chose to support one of the most successful 3rd parties ever created. Now, both the Democrats and Republicans have to deal with the people’s choice.
Why did I hear this post in my head in the voice of Agent Smith? Heh.
Same question. Only replace “woman” with “man” in my case.
Question for both of you: what state or metro area do you live in? It could very well be that you already benefit from more conservative policies than you know.
Eh, I disagree. You can do pretty well by giving the public the implied respect in being willing to call them on their nonsense.
That’s not so bad, but the main problem with that is that it’s so standard. It doesn’t break the pattern that the xenophobes are locked in, and it still indulges the fantasy that sufficient “border security” means a hill of beans.
I agree with that, but that’s also not the same as saying you don’t want people’s votes because you disagree with them.
THat’s a bipartisan problem. The immigration reform bill contains tons of border security measures and the implied promise of immigration reform is that we fix our system. If it’s really just an amnesty, one of many to come, then the Democrats should be responsible and inform us of that fact. Instead, they are touting the “tough” parts of the bill to build support for legalization and a path to citizenship. If the tough parts are just bait for us rubes, then it’s a civic responsibility to level with us.
Or, the Democrats could just be doing their usual shtick of conceding Americans’ backwardness until the time is ripe for change, as they’ve done with numerous other issues pertaining to civil rights. But if that’s the case, then their supporters really shouldn’t get sanctimonious about wanting Republican politicians to reject racist supporters. Because the Democrats are perfectly happy to not only campaign for their votes, but are also willing to give them what they want. For now.
As I’ve noted before, neither side in the immigration debate is free from disreputable characters.
I don’t want to be on the side of stupid bigots who just hate Mexicans, but as a practical matter, I AM on their side. It can’t be helped.
On the other hand, idealists who want to welcome illegal aliens are, as a practical matter, on the side of Big Business and of despicable, exploitative farmers who want unlimited cheap labor. That can’t be helped either.
What the liberal side has to understand is that EVERY policy decision has winners and losers. Allowing millions of Mexicans to enter the country illegally and take jobs at low wages is great for SOME people:
The Mexicans themselves
Wealthy Americans
The Democratic Party (more voters)
But there are losers, too: blue collar Americans of all colors! The list of “jobs Americans won’t do” keeps growing, and blue-collar jobs that used to pay well no longer do.
Donald Trump is a jerk in countless ways. When he says that Mexican immigrants are rapists and killers, and “some” are good people, he’s way off the mark. Most Mexican illegal immigrants are decent people who just want to work hard, make a little money, and take care of their families. When it’s 105 degrees on a miserable summer day here in Texas, I know I’ll see Mexicans doing roofing, construction and yard work. Their work ethic is unmatched.
But you know what? In my youth, construction was a high-paying, usually unionized job. It’s NOT here. Not any more.
Eric Schlosser (no Republican) points out in ***Fast Food Nation *** that stockyards USED to have unionized, high-paid employees. Today, they have illegal aliens doing those jobs for far less money.
My ex-father in law was a Texas-born Hispanic man who worked in the oil fields of South Texas his whole life. He managed to put two kids through college on the money he made. Today, his job (and the jobs of many native-born Americans of Hispanic descent) is done by illegals who won’t make nearly enough to put kids through college, DREAM Act or no.
It’s far too easy for people with no stake in this issue, with nothing to lose, to dismiss worried blue-collar Americans as bigots. They have good REASONS for worrying about the impact of foreign competition. But hardly any politicians want to address the problem. As Edward Abbey would have put it, the Republicans love their cheap labor and the Democrats love a cheap cause. Hence, both Jeb and Hillary will be gung ho for amnesty and for welcoming in more unskilled Mexican labor.
And if REPUTABLE politicians won’t address the issue, is it any surprise that DISreputable politicians who raise the issue will find enthusiastic supporters?
They can’t vote, you know. Any gain to the Dem base takes a generation.
Never underestimate the power of Zombie ACORN 
But in the long run, they vote a straight Democratic ticket. And it’s not as if left-leaning parties around the globe haven’t been known to open the borders for their own political gain:
One of the groups that loses the most is is blacks with a low skill set. The jobs on the lower end of the pay scale that would usually go to them are being usurped by illegals. AND they drive down the wages for those jobs in the process.
As I’ve mentioned before, how the democrats are getting away with this is astonishing. All those years of lip service about wanting to fight for blacks generally, and those on the lower end of the economic spectrum specifically, has been revealed to be just that: lip service.
Also, I think your list should read:
Illegals from Mexico and other countries (legal Mexican immigrants on the low end of pay spectrum suffer just as much as any low-skilled worker)
Wealthy Americans
The Democratic Party (more voters)
Except that this is not a rock-solid factual claim. Immigration (both legal and illegal) creates jobs as well as “taking” jobs – everyone, whether legal or illegal, needs to eat, everyone needs a place to stay, everyone needs roads and mechanics and plumbers and the like, and all of this activity supports jobs. I support immigration (and support legalizing most illegal immigrants, who are mostly hard working people who would be great Americans) because I think at the current level the net economic benefit is positive, even for low income people (including black people).
So no, it’s not just “lip service”. Many Democrats believe, for rational reasons, that immigration at roughly current levels is a good thing for America.
You don’t have to look at the long run. In the short run, anti-illegal-immigrant ranting looks a lot like anti-legal immigrant ranting to people who identify with them and can vote.
If you say you want to keep those rapist Belgians out but love the resident Belgians just fine, the resident Belgians are not going to believe you.
The RNC figured this out after 2012. Their base however thinks different.
While you are accurately reporting what Nate said, I don’t buy it. How many people didn’t know who Trump was before he started shooting off his mouth? And the other candidates are pretty well known also.
Nate seems not to believe that his statements are resonating with the base. That would be nice, but I’d like to see some numbers.
In 2012 there were surges by clowns like Cain and Bachmann. I think Nate is relating Trump’s surge to those, but those surges seemed to come from the dissatisfaction with Mitt. If Bush had been solidly in the lead I could see it, but he isn’t nearly the obvious choice Romney was at this point last time.
I see nothing in there about “political gain” to Labour. It appears the Labour leaders wanted a more diverse, multicultural Britain for its own sake.