Credit where credit is due: The Republican establishment deserves credit for repudiating Trump

@Robert Gentel,

I'm not sure the Republican Establishment is repudiating him for the reasons you think they should be. I think they're mostly resistant to him because they don't think he will do what they tell him to do. I think if he were an "Establishment Candidate" they would like him no matter what he said... as long as they thought he could win.

I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I don't get the criticism that people who vote against a candidate get. I think that is just as legitimate a political choice as voting for a candidate.

The ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship, they just typically have trouble with the benevolent part and the main thing that democracy serves is not to put people in power but to remove or prevent people from having power.

People who are Sanders supporters but who would vote for Trump over Hillary have reasoning that doesn't resonate with me but that is perfectly logically and politically sound. People who supported Bush over Trump but would vote HIllary to prevent Trump too.

Ultimately I think that there is no illegitimate (if legal) way to vote. You distinguish voting consience vs voting third party as a protest but I don't see why doing so can't be a vote of consience. It's just predicated on different priorities than you (or I in this case) would like people to have.

Edit: rereading your post you seem to be making the distinction of voting for a third party because you support them vs because you don't support someone else. I agree that the former is better game theory but that's really the only political qualm I can find with it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That's a bogus argument. Voting records aren't a representative sample. They only show differences on legislation that has made it through committee. The 93% figure includes naming of post offices.

Completely agree with this. Voting record has more to do with the political makeup of congress than it does with personal positions. There is as much difference between Sanders and Hillary as Trump and Hillary. Not any differences I elevate to the differences between Trump and Hillary but on substantative policy issues there is as much daylight.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I think there are three reasons that they are repudiating him:

1) More than anything the man is an obvious joke to all but his inordinately uneducated followers. Even if he were a political fit the man is a joke.

2) He is not a political fit. The trade war rhetoric is a shitty Democrat argument (that they only use to get elected, they don't' beleive that nonsense either) and he is not a good free market capitalist because he is raving economic nonsense.

3) Despite the Republican party having a long way to go on social issues they aren't a monolithic party of troglodytes that their opponents would like to see them as. Many of them are legitimately appaled by his distain for women, and his demagoguery.

4) They see him as inevitable to lose (due to all of the above) and don't want to back a temporarily popular loser (they might be misreading Trump's rise like everyone else has given its inherent unpredictablity).

If he were an "establishment candidate" he wouldn't have a lot of these legitimate downsides they have with him. It goes beyond him being "anti-establishment", the man is clearly one of the worst mainstream candidates to ever come along, whose popularity is an artifact of dissatisfaction with poltical obstructionism.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The article I posted lists the votes where Clinton and Sanders disagreed. Some I'm with Clinton, some I'm with Sanders. So which ones do you think Clinton was clearly in the wrong and Sanders was in the right? I'll start with these since I don't want to post a wall of text.

My take:
Oct. 1, 2008 Pass bank bailout bill Passed, 74-25
Sanders: Against the bill
Clinton: Supported the bill

I supported this bill, not because I love bankers but because if we allowed the banks to fail, we would all suffer very serious consequences.

Jan. 15, 2009 Don't spend final $350 billion in TARP money. Rejected, 42-52
Sanders: Don't spend the money
Clinton: Continue TARP

I'm mixed but mostly with Clinton. Most economists will tell you that TARP was essential to freeing up liquidity in the markets to get lending going again. Should the government have done less? Maybe, but too little would have been worse than too much.

End debate on immigration reform legislation Rejected, 33-63
Sanders: Prevent vote on bill
Clinton: Move to vote on bill

I can't see why Sanders would move to block votes on immigration reform six times, but I'm clearly in Clinton's camp here.

Remove requirement that Y-1 immigration visa holders leave U.S. before renewal Rejected, 41-57
Sanders: Favored removing requirement
Clinton: Opposed removing requirement

I'm with Sanders here, this is a silly requirement.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I agree. It must be quite frustrating for sane Republicans; I'm happier now that I see more and more are speaking out.

0 Replies

@George,

This is definitely the big takeaway from Trump for me. He's an idiot but there are a lot of those and I don't care about them. That there are that many who support him is disappointing.

Trump is the jackass he has always been. I didn't expect Trump to be better, but I did expect America to be.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I think there are three reasons that they are repudiating him...

Do you think they are repudiating him if they say they will vote for him in November? At least Cruz and Kasich are starting to waffle,

Quote:

Asked three times whether he would support Trump as the party's nominee, Texas Senator Ted Cruz refused to give a yes or no answer. "I'm not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and my family," Cruz said. "I think nominating Donald Trump would be an absolute train wreck. I think it would hand the general election to Hillary Clinton."

Ohio Governor John Kasich also dodged the question of whether he would support whoever became the Republican nominee, but left open the possibility that he might not. “Maybe I won’t answer it either," Kasich said. “I don’t want to be political here: I’ve got to see what happens."

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Do you think they are repudiating him if they say they will vote for him in November? At least Cruz and Kasich are starting to waffle,

I think they are not monolithic and some will repudiate him and some won't. Some will waffle etc. I am heartened that as many who have stuck their necks out to repudiate him have.

The candidates have a lot of reasons to not give forthright answers on this and I wasn't really thinking about them but more of the many establishment folk who have spoken up about it without anything to gain and plenty to lose.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Their last chance to stop Mr. Trump was to get behind Rubio starting in New Hampshire. They blew it badly. At this point there is nothing that can be done to prevent history from taking its course.

And frankly they really should accept it. Mr. Trump is going to lead the Republicans to a historic victory over the Democrats. It's a good time to be a Republican.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I think your predictions are far too based on wishful thinking. Trump is causing legitimate harm to the Republican party and while the general election will be close (and I think he will lose) it's true that he is a formidable politlcal candidate in this climate.

But seeing this as being a good time to be Republican is self-indulgence at best. Even if he pulls off an upset victory this is not going to help Republicans and could user in a Democratic era.

Trump's vapid style is much better at this campaign game than actual governance. If he wins it will be a black mark presidency for Republicans and hurt them in the medium and the long term.

And all that is ignoring that he's actually hurting them short-term too. You are willfully ignoring the bad news for your political party and embracing someone you should be mitigating the harm to your party from instead of pretending it will just be all fine and dandy.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Mr. Trump is ushering in an era of extended Republican dominance. It's going to be 20 years before the Democrats will have another chance of winning the White House.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Like I said, that's just wishful thinking, there's no evidence that this will be so, but you just fancy the idea.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Like I said, that's just wishful thinking, there's no evidence that this will be so,

I assess the evidence differently.

Robert Gentel wrote:

but you just fancy the idea.

There are some positive things about it and some negative things about it.

I certainly like the fact that we'll finally get the Supreme Court on board with the Second Amendment. I find the Democrats' Constitution-hating ideals repugnant.

I could do without the trade wars however.

It's April 1st. Why isn't the site going haywire? Sad

2 Replies

@oralloy,

you consider the Heller Decision a loss for "the second amendment"?.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

No. But so far it has not been enforced by the courts. It just sort of exists on paper.

Rights were meant to be enforced by the courts.

1 Reply

The Trump moment in American politics is ending.
Now, if we can get rid of Cruz, I'll feel much better about my country.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

in the case of Heller, all the issues would be civil court, not criminal. So I think its the responsibility of the agrieved to use the courts. I dont blieve the courts should be out "fishin" for bullshit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

in the case of Heller, all the issues would be civil court, not criminal.

Criminal laws can very much violate the Second Amendment.

farmerman wrote:

So I think its the responsibility of the agrieved to use the courts.

This does not change that we need more conservatives on the Supreme Court so that they will begin to enforce the Second Amendment.

farmerman wrote:

I dont blieve the courts should be out "fishin" for bullshit.

The courts are not. They only hear cases that people bring to them.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

The Trump moment in American politics is ending.

That's very unlikely.

Lash wrote:

Now, if we can get rid of Cruz, I'll feel much better about my country.

The Republicans will need to nominate someone so they can take advantage of their guaranteed election victory.

1 Reply

Credit where credit is due: The Republican establishment deserves credit for repudiating Trump

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know