Cross post - It's gone beyond Democrats vs Republicans

[LAS14]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027657089

I'd posted earlier about wondering which to wish for, a Republican nominee like Trump whom Hillary could beat more easily, or a Republican nominee that doesn't so clearly raise the specter of demagoguery. I'm moving in the direction of thinking that it would be better to have a Rubio for 4 or 8 years than to have one of our two major parties taken over by the extreme far right anti-"other" group that is clearly threatening Europe.

I don't really know enough about how parties are organized. How much power would Trump have if he were the nominee? If he were president?

[MSMITH33156]

1. It would be more palatable

If the Supreme Court wasn't at stake. We survived 8 years of Bush, so on that front, we could survive. The problem is that we need the Supreme Court, period.

From 1968-1992, we had 4 years of democratic presidency. Because of that, we've had conservative Constitutional interpretation.

1) they've strengthened the 2nd amendment.
2) they made Bush president.
3) they've weakened Row v. Wade.
4) they've killed campaign finance reform.
5) they've killed the voting rights act

And on, and on.

Now from 1992 to 2016, we've had 16 years to 8 in favor of the Democrats, and that should lead the court back left. But the Republicans are now trying to cheat. Not allow Obama to select a justice. Whatever happens there, we need a Democrat to appoint the next replacement. Because even if Obama appoints one, we will lose that gain immediately at the next vacancy.

And by far the most important issue is voting. Because Republicans are cheating. They've

1) passed voter ID laws that depress voter turnout on the D side.
2) gerrymandering districts so they can't lose the house.

We've seen a lot of coverage of the first issue, but the second is threatening our democracy. Even when significantly more people voted Democrat in 2012, the Republican easily held the house. This is also why you have extremism. Their seats are so safe in the general election, they just worry about challenges from the right. So rather than being forced to compromise, the incentive is to be intransigent.

And all that is legal!

So what we need is a liberal judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance. Then a lawsuit claiming that partisan gerrymandering violates the constitution by effectively disenfranchising voters, which would force all districts to be redrawn. This would actually hurt Dems in some states (Maryland in particular), but it'll be fair.

If you want the root cause of our broken political system, it starts with gerrymandering. Our democracy is actually at stake if you have a minority party getting less votes and still winning because they cheated. The only way to fix it is via the Supreme Court and the only for that to happen is with a democratic president, which means we weak a general election candidate as possible... Trump.

[LAS14]

2. OK. That's persuasive.

I'm back to wanting Trump to be the Republican nominee.... I think... I guess I'm still afraid of the number of people that seem to be flocking to his anti-"other" message. 49%????? In the USA?????

[HillareeeHillaraah]

7. Well, isn't that more like 49% of registered republicans?

So more like what 25-30% of registered voters....I'm not a numbers person but I think Hillary would landslide the guy.

[wysi]

4. Excellent reply

My thoughts exactly. Trump is a much weaker GE candidate than Rubio, simply because a lot of republicans will not vote for him out of revulsion.

[LAS14]

5. Yeah, but what about the democrats...

... who are anti-other who will switch parties? I believe there is evidence (can't remember where) that this is a threat.

[wysi]

8. If there are Democrats who are "anti-other"...

... then I want them either to change their attitude or change their party. We Democrats are not about bigotry.

[sufrommich]

3. Trump's popularity is being highly inflated.

He's winning a small slice of the GOP who vote in primaries. If he wins their nomination,his numbers will go way down in the General. The GOP isn't panicking for nothing.

[LAS14]

6. I think they may be panicking because...

... they think he will win.

[Fla Dem]

11. They are panicking that he will win the GOP nomination, but will then lose the General election. nt

[LAS14]

9. Could I get 3 more replies....

... in GD? I think this is really important, but I think lots of folks don't go to GD, just GDP, and they wouldn't let me post it there.

tia
las

[Fla Dem]

12. GDP I guess is to only discuss the Democratic Primaries. nt

[MSMITH33156]

10. On Trump's strength

I think where the talking heads are really screwing up is with this talk of him appealing to "Reagan Democrats"...meaning blue collar, white workers in the industrial midwest.

This is a huge miscalculation, for multiple reasons.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of all white voters and won election in a 44-state landslide. In 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney carried 59 percent of all white voters yet lost decisively. What happened? African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and other non-whites — all overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning groups — rose from 12 percent of voters in 1980 to 28 percent in 2012.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

The "Reagan Democrats" kind of never came back. Some did, for sure. But a lot of them stayed Republican. What happened is their political import diminished. To envision this as a major problem for Hillary is a bit ridiculous.

They've almost maxed out on the white vote. The idea that they are going get a significant increase (we're talking 4-5%) of white voters who voted for Obama to go with the Trump is pretty much insane.

Not to mention the Latino vote which went from 53% Dem, to 67%, to 71%..this is a vote that is trending more liberal. You stick Trump on the other side, it's like adding an accelerant to a fire. You're looking at at least 75-80%.

Red State (I know, I know), did this analysis:

For example, a recent Real Clear Politics interactive turn-out calculator shows that for the Republican nominee to win the White House, he or she must capture at least 64 percent of the white vote. (This assumes the white and non-white voter turn-out numbers remain historically consistent.)

The need to achieve 64 percent of the white vote should be extremely disconcerting for the GOP because since 1976 there have only been two presidential elections where the Republican nominees won over 60 percent of the white vote and that was in 1984 and 1988.

On the non-white vote side of the equation, respected Republican pollster Whit Ayres predicts that the Republican nominee must win at least 30 percent of the total non-white vote in order to win the White House.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2015/09/04/gop-nominee-needs-64-percent-white-vote-30-percent-non-white-vote-win-16/

So, they're somehow going to have to increase their percentage of white voters by appealing to racism and having that work by flipping 5 percent of the voters that 4 years ago were voting for a black president while simultaneously increasing their share of minority voters.

The demographics have and continue to move away from them. Trump is running a 1980s campaign in 2016. He is the candidate we want.