# Trump's Republican primary campaign **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 3, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828 "2015-09-03T18:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 84
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1665 "2016-01-31T20:46:57Z")
I would rather pound my nuts flat with a wooden hammer than have Trump in the White House. I would rather drive cross-country with Dane Cook, and the only thing I can say is “tell me a joke.” I would rather watch golf on tv. I would rather go to Bill Cosby’s house for drinks than have Trump in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1666 "2016-01-31T23:07:11Z")
A former Trump campaign field organizer in Iowa has sued Trump for sex discrimination. She alleges she was paid less than men doing the same work. > **[Ex-Trump field organizer accuses campaign of sex discrimination](https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267681-ex-trump-field-organizer-accuses-campaign-of-sex/)** > > Elizabeth Mae Davidson was fired in mid-January. This is surely the development that will finally sink Trump. His supporters will never stand for this kind of thing. I’m curious – are Executive Branch position salaries set by law? Or could President Trump, say, pay Secretary of Defense Meat Loaf more than Secretary of State Snooki just because he is a smart businessman who knows what people are worth? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1667 "2016-01-31T23:12:02Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > This bit from the Des Moines \*Register \*article **DSeid** quoted just above is both interesting and confusing … And to add to the confusion is that Bloomberg notes that in 2012 the last poll predicted 27% would be first-timers (much less than this poll did) but the article I linked to notes that actually 38% were. So let’s start off with the recognition that the number who say they will participate for the first time and the number who actually do can be way off in either direction. [This article](http://iowacaucusproject.org/2015/07/how-many-people-participate-in-the-iowa-caucuses/) gives some of what we might need to _try_ to parse it out. 1. In general only 20% of those eligible to caucus do so. And those eligible is a fluid fraction. 2. The caucus is “closed” meaning that you need to be registered in the party to participate but you can register or re-register (switching party) at the precinct that night apparently. Hence in 2012 a bunch of previously “Independents” and even a few Democrats, (one in four of those participating) registered as Republican and nearly half voted for Ron Paul. One suspects that some fraction of them had never before participated in a GOP caucus, yes? Hence more participated in the GOP caucus than in past years. That 38% was a high number based on Paul pulling independents in. Independents are the plurality in Iowa (“In January 2012, independents were 36.3% of all active Iowa registered voters, a plurality. At the same time, Republicans were 31.0% of Iowa voters, and Democrats were 32.5%”) 3. But those Paul voters and others who were independent last time and voted otherwise would not be new GOP caucus goers this time … Still, a fraction of the 36% who previously identified as independents deciding to caucus GOP for their first time ever is a big fraction of the 20% of the 31% previously registered Republican who bother to participate at all. 4. Which still begs the question if those who the poll are picking up now are the other non-Paul independents, or the bulk of already eligible GOP voters who have never shown before motivated to vote a now for something completely different candidate? And will they actually show tomorrow? **Superdude** and **Elendil’s Heir** … all well and good and mildly humorous, but you, I suspect are not as likely those who the GOP is relying on to come out and vote in November. The nature of the split field is that Trump could very well win Iowa with more GOP caucus goers willing to say that they would not vote for him no matter what than those who do vote for him. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1668 "2016-01-31T23:13:53Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The implication is that 78% of the folks at this year’s (tomorrow’s) caucus were not involved in politics enough to attend any caucus in 2008 or before. I don’t think that follows. It’s very possible that almost none of the 38% first-timers in 2012 will show up in 2016. Or, put another way, you could (and likely do) have something like 60+% that show up every time and the other 40% are folks that bounce in and out depending on how locked into politics they are at the time and if they have a candidate they feel strongly enough to show up for. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1669 "2016-01-31T23:31:36Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I don’t think that follows. It’s very possible that almost none of the 38% first-timers in 2012 will show up in 2016. Or, put another way, you could (and likely do) have something like 60+% that show up every time and the other 40% are folks that bounce in and out depending on how locked into politics they are at the time and if they have a candidate they feel strongly enough to show up for. Yeah, I think that’s it. Particularly coupled with **DSeid** ’s number just above that only 20% of eligible voters actually caucus. I suspect the process is so user-unfriendly that a lot of people try it once and never go back. Only the hardcore dedicated political junkies go every 4 years. So each year consists of a small hard core of veterans and a crop of newbie one-timers. All of which makes me think the process is even less meaningful and representative and democratic than I had realized. And I already knew it was a sham. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1670 "2016-01-31T23:44:05Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > All of which makes me think the process is even less meaningful and representative and democratic than I had realized. And I already knew it was a sham. You know, even in a Presidential general election, fewer than 60% of eligible voters actually vote. The entire process, from Iowa through November, is taken part in by people who care enough to do so. That’s meaningful and representative and democratic enough for me. Other than by driving the disinterested to the polls with whips, what would you suggest to increase turnout? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1671 "2016-02-01T00:22:14Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > You know, even in a Presidential general election, fewer than 60% of eligible voters actually vote. The entire process, from Iowa through November, is taken part in by people who care enough to do so. That’s meaningful and representative and democratic enough for me. > > Other than by driving the disinterested to the polls with whips, what would you suggest to increase turnout? Well, we _could_ fine citizens who fail to participate. Perhaps by means of a penalty to every tax return in the following year not accompanied by a voting receipt of some kind. Several countries currently require voting participation, including Australia. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1672 "2016-02-01T00:39:26Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Well, we _could_ fine citizens who fail to participate. Perhaps by means of a penalty to every tax return in the following year not accompanied by a voting receipt of some kind. Several countries currently require voting participation, including Australia. I’m not actually interested in adopting such a system. That said: Are people in those countries fined for every election that comes along? In the U.S., we’ve got general elections for President every four years, for 1/3 of the Senate seats and the entire House of Representatives every two years. In addition to the biennial national election, some states hold general elections for state-level offices (governor, etc.) in odd-numbered years. In addition to that, many localities hold elections in the spring in any year, or in every year, for such as mayor, city council, etc. In addition to that, there are special elections to replace an office holder who has left the term of office empty. In addition to that, there are primary elections to decide the party candidate for almost every election that involves an actual person. In addition to that, there are sometimes elections that do not involve any person, but are for tax levies and the like. Should someone be fined for not voting in every one of those? Once again, the process is taken part in by those who are interested. What does democracy gain by driving those who are not interested to the polls? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1673 "2016-02-01T01:08:58Z")
I believe in Australia the law applies to federal and state elections. As for what is gained–broader consent of the governed? A stronger mandate for the elected candidates? A message on the importance of civic involvement by all citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1674 "2016-02-01T01:24:56Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > As for what is gained–broader consent of the governed? A stronger mandate for the elected candidates? A message on the importance of civic involvement by all citizens? All your ideas end in question marks, as they should. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1675 "2016-02-01T01:26:43Z")
[TRUMP: Unlike Cruz “I have a heart”, I’ll enact universal health coverage](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430549/trump-unlike-cruz-i-have-heart-ill-enact-universal-health-coverage?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Corner) > [@](#): > > Trump: Unlike Cruz, ‘I Have a Heart,’ I’ll Enact Universal Health Coverage > January 31, 2016 12:20 PM In an interview this morning on This Week, Donald Trump cited his desire to “help people” as the reason he favors government-funded universal health coverage. Unlike Ted Cruz, Trump said, “I have a heart.” “If somebody has no money and they’re lying in the middle of the street and they’re dying, I’m going to take care of that person,” Trump said. Host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump “how do you do it?” And Trump explained his plan thusly: We’re going to work with our hospitals. We’re going to work with our doctors. We’ve got to do something. You can’t have a — a small percentage of our economy, because they’re down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can’t do that. We’ll work something out. That doesn’t mean single payer. And I mean, maybe he’s got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can’t let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1676 "2016-02-01T01:50:09Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > All your ideas end in question marks, as they should. Grafting such laws onto the current US polity would be, as you suggest, an invitiation to have the know-nothings really influence things in dumb ways. As well as near universal non-compliance followed by noisy repeal. But I suspect a person raised in a place like Australia, knowing from a tender age that voting, like tax-paying, is mandatory would approach the whole thing from a rather different mindset that our non-voters do. Both countries have their underclass of asocial marginally criminal losers. Plus the actual crims. And a contingent of the mentally unstable or simply mentally feeble. But beyond that there are plenty of Americans who \*could \*care if they tried. They’re just not motivated to try. Had they been nudged from a young age by a society that expects voting as part of normal grown-up life, more of them might well play. I’d like to hear from any Aussies how this requirement is viewed by them. Is it the equivalent of the hated, derided, and universally ignored 55 mph speed limit, or is it something they look on with pride as part of making their nation and democracy better? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1677 "2016-02-01T01:53:21Z")
Doubling back to the odd divergence between Bloomberg News’ and the Des Moines Register’s portrayal of the same “40 percent of those in the survey say they’ll be attending for the first time” as “Trump is inspiring new interest in the Republican caucuses” vs. “Nothing in this poll forecasts a groundswell of new people.” Any sense of what motivates each outfit’s spin of the exact same data point? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1678 "2016-02-01T02:09:38Z")
All I can think is the \*Register \*author was a total buffoon. Or his/her decent article was edited into nonsense by a buffoonish editor. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1679 "2016-02-01T03:22:32Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Well, we _could_ fine citizens who fail to participate. Perhaps by means of a penalty to every tax return in the following year not accompanied by a voting receipt of some kind. Several countries currently require voting participation, including Australia. I’m strongly against this. I think it would be the surest ticket to getting a bunch of Jesse Ventura type candidates elected, or worse. > [@Superdude](#): > > I would rather pound my nuts flat with a wooden hammer than have Trump in the White House. I would rather drive cross-country with Dane Cook, and the only thing I can say is “tell me a joke.” I would rather watch golf on tv. I would rather go to Bill Cosby’s house for drinks than have Trump in the White House. I tended to feel that way myself (although I have been planning on voting for him in the Missouri primary if Hillary did not need my help by then, as a way to help set her up with an easy opponent). But hearing him talk on _ABC This Week_ about universal health care, as cited upthread by **Qin Shi** , it was hard for me not to start feeling like it would actually be a lot better to have him in there than Cruz or Rubio. (I know this isn’t a new position–he said years ago “we’ve got to get everyone covered” or something along those lines–but it surprised me that he is still so strong for this position, even saying “I don’t care if it makes me lose the election”.) BTW, I know it’s cool and hip to bash Dane Cook, but I thought his HBO special _Vicious Circle_ was really funny. As in, the rare experience of tears rolling down my face and getting a sideache from laughing so hard. (I have however never seen anything else from him.) And I say this as someone who is also a fan of other comedians that are embraced by the hip crowd, like Louis CK and David Cross. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1680 "2016-02-01T04:14:19Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > All I can think is the \*Register \*author was a total buffoon. Or his/her decent article was edited into nonsense by a buffoonish editor. Why that author the buffoon and not the Bloomberg one or both? All we know is that last time the poll, which otherwise is highly respected and does well, completely missed the relatively huge number of independents that registered as Republicans and voted mostly for Ron Paul and that this year the poll reports a similar number to last time’s actual turnout of first timers as intending to caucus. If they all actually do it will be similar to last time’s first timer numbers; nothing historic. If they do not it will be less than 2012’s first timer turnout. And of course it could be another atypical underestimate as well. Is there any particular reason to accept one as more probable than another? Is predicting the same first timer turnout as 2012’s most reasonably described as “inspiring new interest”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1681 "2016-02-01T06:42:27Z")
Maybe some people are excited about Trump because they hate politics and don’t understand it, so they naturally like someone who reflects their ignorant contempt? So. they’ve never caucused, maybe never even voted, but you ask them, they’ll tell you they will because they just told you they love Trump. Wait, no, that kinda makes sense. In this batshit situation, it would be wise to be suspicious of things that make any kind of sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1682 "2016-02-01T13:54:41Z")
I think many new voters are for Trump because: - they are struggling and don’t believe the established politicians can help them - they see politicians bankrolled by wealthy people + companies and assume that sets the policies in favour of the rich - they’re fed up with the stalemate between the President and Congress - they’ve heard of him ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1683 "2016-02-01T14:28:54Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > [TRUMP: Unlike Cruz “I have a heart”, I’ll enact universal health coverage](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430549/trump-unlike-cruz-i-have-heart-ill-enact-universal-health-coverage?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Corner) From the article: > [@](#): > > In an interview this morning on This Week, Donald Trump cited his desire to “help people” as the **reason he favors government-funded universal health coverage**. > > \ > > We’re going to work with our hospitals. We’re going to work with our doctors. We’ve got to do something. > > \ > > \*\* That doesn’t mean single payer\*\*. (my bold) I’m not sure how to reconcile the bolded parts. Maybe he means the government will provide some supplemental funding with the rest coming from individuals? Maybe the government will fund multiple payers (although if the government is providing all the funding, having multiple “payers” is kind of a strange thing to do). And his whole “plan” is “we’ll work with the hospitals and doctors and figure something out”. There is no idea here. No proposal. Just, we’ll figure something out because I’m smart and I’ll work with smart people. Those smart people, strangely, don’t seem to include insurance companies and drug companies. He has **no clue** how to deal with health care. None. He’s just spouting off about how we need something great. I agree, we need something great! Let’s do it! ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/1684 "2016-02-01T14:34:53Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > I’m not sure how to reconcile the bolded parts. Maybe he means the government will provide some supplemental funding with the rest coming from individuals? Maybe the government will fund multiple payers (although if the government is providing all the funding, having multiple “payers” is kind of a strange thing to do). It’s not going to be “single-payer.” That’s communism. It’s going to be via a “unification payment plan.” The country is coming together to make America great again 2016. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828.md?page=85)