Fuck It's Silent in Here 2016

[InternetApex]

Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?

Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008

Obama today, if a third term was legal.

I think once we got to the debates it would be pretty goddamn entertaining.

2008: Obama 365, McCain 173
2012: Obama 332, Romney 206
2016: Obama 336, Trump 202 (Obama wins back NC, Trump wins Indiana.)

Oh, how humiliating.

[SKO]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

[InternetApex]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

[PenFoe]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

20,000 people in Massachusetts switched from Democrat to either Independent (16.5K) or GOP (3.5K) in the lead-up to the primary yesterday, and then Trump won just shy of 50% of the vote yesterday. 

Pretty sure they weren't switching over to vote for Kasich.

[SKO]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

[InternetApex]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton! All we'll get is four years of banking scandals and another recession. That beats the shit out of WWIII.

[SKO]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!

She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.

[InternetApex]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!

She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.

More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Hawk Harrelson.

[SKO]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!

She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.

More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Phil Rogers.

Or is she the Mike Quade to Trump's


Nice choice, JimAmerica

[InternetApex]

I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.

I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.

Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.

And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.

Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.

I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.

Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!

She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.

More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Phil Rogers.

Or is she the Mike Quade to Trump's

I changed my comparison to Hawk Harrelson above but this works too.

[Brownie]

I know what the polls say, that Trump is comfortably ahead in Florida. He was also comfortably ahead in Virginia until Rubio shaved that 20 points down to 3. If Kasich can pull out OH and Rubio wins FL, and IL elects some Rubio delegates, the fight is not over. If it gets to Cleveland, you'll have a floor fight, and the delegates may just line up behind a guy who's not a candidate right now. Trump can then say he's running third party, but guess what: sore loser laws in states like IL eliminate him from running in Nov. as anything other than a Republican.

Apex is correct in that Trump defies conventional wisdom. GOP Turnout is up like crazy in these primaries, at levels not seen before. Are they ex-Democrats? Some are. Are they traditional non-voters? Some are. But to look at Illinois, for example, and say that it's safely Dem based on historical trends, but this guy appeals to people outside the conservative movement. In my opinion, three things are driving his phenomena:

1) Immigration issues, as a majority of people are frustrated that they feel current immigration law isn't being enforced. (Yes, it's a complicated issue, and my candidate is a Gang of 8 guy, but the perception is that going 45 in a 35 is a more harshly-enforced crime than immigrating here illegally.

2) Trade. Trump's view on trade is not far from Bernie Sanders'. Again, I am on the side of free trade, so I look at NAFTA, CAFTA, and the idea (if not the details and the process of) TPP appealing. However, protectionism is appealing, and Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader were all protectionist doves next to Trump.

3) Celebrity/Personality. Trump is something people haven't seen before on the political stage. Perot was a little goofy, but even he would be a little more restrained from Trump. I don't even like Trump, but I wanted to watch his "press conference" yesterday just to hear what he had to say. Hillary, Cruz, and Rubio all had feel-good messages and fired up their crowds, but Iowa-Indiana won over those three in my home. So I groan and shake my head, but even I want to hear what inane things he's going to say. We have experience in this. Which is more captivating, shows more FIRE AND PASSION? This? Or this?

Last night was a solid, but not a great night for Trump. The ground is beginning to move beneath him, and Ricketts' money is beginning to be spent against him in Florida, Illinois and Ohio. Rubio is concentrating on Florida, Cruz is going to be here a lot and Kasich will be in OH and MI. We'll see how and where Trump plays well here.

[SKO]

Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.

[Brownie]

Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.

No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.

[SKO]

Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.

No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.

If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.

[PenFoe]

You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.

I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.