The reason I find this interesting is if you look at the top five of the contenders, we have, respectively, a black male, a white male, a white female, a Hispanic male, and a white male.
Less than half are white males. Rather noteworthy considering this is the supposed "white male party."
Supposed?
Based on the makeup of the Senate and Congress, I'd say it's more than 'supposed'.
Having said that, while there's only one woman polling in that list, and three non-white people, it is indeed a good sign for Republican diversity that three of those four are polling over 5% and one is tied for the lead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Fair, although it's not as though the Republican party has no minorities or women.
Having said that, while there's only one woman polling in that list, and three non-white people, it is indeed a good sign for Republican diversity that three of those four are polling over 5% and one is tied for the lead.
I think so. And in fact, if we remove Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum from that list, the list becomes equal parts white men and not-white-men. More not-white-men if we remove Trump.
Related to this, 538.com has a piece on Carson's uptick and, more importantly, what it might signal for Trump. If Trump loses most of his support as Carson surges then Trump is the "flavor-of-the-month." If Trump's sustains his support then he's got a pretty strong base.
Or he's just got a group of people who aren't voting for Carson for whatever reason.
The Tea Party split happened in 2010 and since then they've gone on to do nothing. The Tea Party is a joke.
You need to stop just focusing on Washington and look at the rest of the country. The populist right movement (I don't really like to call it Tea Party these days because the real Tea Party was hijacked) is very much alive in America and it's bigger than you admit it to be.
That's kinda how a party works. You bring people who are very different in terms of interest together
Except this is what is creating the civil war in the GOP in the first place. A significant amount of the voting base feels very strongly they are not truly represented by career politicians.
Dude, everyone keeps talking about this every election. "How is ___ going to energize the base?" "Oh, Republicans don't trust John McCain." "Republicans don't like Romney."
You know what Republicans do come election-time? They vote for Republicans.
They vote for Republicans begrudgingly. In the past many of these voters held their nose for someone like McCain or Romney but they are likely not going to be doing that for the future as long as the economy continue to stagnate and the country continues to go in a direction they believe is not in their best interests.
I assume you're referring to the growing Latino demographics in the voting electorate? What specifically makes you think they'll keep voting Democrat?
Because that's how they've historically voted in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Even if the GOP tried to radically change their image or positions I imagine it wouldn't be enough to coax minorities to vote for them. Trying to seduce minorities has been a lost cause for the GOP for a very long time. It doesn't matter how many minority or female candidates they trot out, they will never get those votes. Case in point: the black population.
Because that's how they've historically voted in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Even if the GOP tried to radically change their image or positions I imagine it wouldn't be enough to coax minorities to vote for them. Trying to seduce minorities has been a lost cause for the GOP for a very long time. It doesn't matter how many minority or female candidates they trot out, they will never get those votes. Case in point: the black population.
Black people historically voted Republican in the past. That changed.
Black people historically voted Republican in the past. That changed.
African Americans traditionally voted Republican because, like the Latino population, they tended to be more religious and to vote more along religious lines. The past 30 years of Republican policy though have thoroughly alienated them to the point where they almost exclusively vote Democratic these days.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
African Americans traditionally voted Republican because, like the Latino population, they tended to be more religious and to vote more along religious lines. The past 30 years of Republican policy though have thoroughly alienated them to the point where they almost exclusively vote Democratic these days.
Republicans were originally the party who changed slavery as well which is where some of that originates. I agree though that in general republicans have been sort of alienating minorities more recently. Part of this also comes from the fact that democrats tend to favor policies that support the poor and not to sound racist but there are a lot of minorities found in the lower end of the income bracket in the states.
Taking stances like allowing illegals to become legals also tends to sway all those who were allowed to become citizens to essentially all join the party that allowed them to be citizens as well. I don't like that sort of party recruitment tactic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Taking stances like allowing illegals to become legals also tends to sway all those who were allowed to become citizens to essentially all join the party that allowed them to be citizens as well. I don't like that sort of party recruitment tactic.
Yeah like when Republicans (Lincoln) freed the slaves, I hate those kinds of pandering and recruitment tactics.
Yeah like when Republicans (Lincoln) freed the slaves, I hate those kinds of pandering and recruitment tactics.
I am not saying that both sides don't do it. I think the concept of freeing slaves and giving citizenship to illegals is sort of a drastic comparison. Granted, back then it was done for many of the same reasons, I think comparing the two now seems sort of extreme.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
The Lincoln-era Republican party is not the same as the modern Republican party. Like, in a very literal sense. The party fractured during the New Deal era, and those who opposed the New Deal joined with the Southern Conservatives from the Democratic party to form what would go on to become the modern Republican party. The Southern Conservatives were literally the same people who opposed Lincoln-era Republicans in abolishing slavery. Quite literally, modern Republicans are the exact people who WEREN'T in the Lincoln-era Republican party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
It feels like there is sort of a lot of scope creep from the original point of this thread right now.
Back on point, I heard an argument about Donald Trump about the ceiling to his support given his general dislike. It was an interesting argument I hadn't really put a lot of thought until it was talked about. Ben Carson on the other hand is generally not disliked (has a higher likeness as a candidate than trump) where as Trump's strong personality will always have a larger group of people who will disapprove of him for who he is. Its an interesting thought which might start showing more as the GOP nomination goes on.
It feels like there is sort of a lot of scope creep from the original point of this thread right now.
Back on point, I heard an argument about Donald Trump about the ceiling to his support given his general dislike. It was an interesting argument I hadn't really put a lot of thought until it was talked about. Ben Carson on the other hand is generally not disliked where as Trump's strong personality will always have a larger group of people who will disapprove of him for who he is. Its an interesting thought which might start showing more as the GOP nomination goes on.
Question is, who of the GOP nominees does this not really apply to? Maybe not to the same extent as Trump, but let's look at the two other frontrunners. Jeb is literally brother to one of the most disliked presidents in modern history, and Cruz has been the head of the "Party of 'No'", who have literally put partisan interests and "making Obama look bad" ahead of the good of the country.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Back on point, I heard an argument about Donald Trump about the ceiling to his support given his general dislike. It was an interesting argument I hadn't really put a lot of thought until it was talked about.
Yeah, this is why no professional political observer is taking the prospect of a Trump victory at all seriously. He will lose, no question about it. The only question is how his presence will distort the race before he does. In the extreme case, if he follows through on his threat to run as an independent, he could act as a Naderesque spoiler to the Republican candidate.
I honestly think the Democratic primary race is more interesting right now, because Clinton is so unexpectedly weak and the party has a dearth of viable alternatives. (Sanders has no more hope than Trump does.) But the GOP race is awash with alternatives, and so once Trump has had his fifteen minutes it's just going to be a pretty normal contest between Bush and Rubio or the other conventional candidates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
African Americans traditionally voted Republican because, like the Latino population, they tended to be more religious and to vote more along religious lines. The past 30 years of Republican policy though have thoroughly alienated them to the point where they almost exclusively vote Democratic these days.
Which is why saying things like, "Because that's how they've historically voted in the past, and will continue to do so in the future," is silly.
Which is why saying things like, "Because that's how they've historically voted in the past, and will continue to do so in the future," is silly.
Sure, but when neither party is really changing their stances that have drawn or repelled them, it doesn't seem likely they'll change at the drop of the hat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Trump has taken all the spotlight this year, but I hope he loses. Whether or not his public persona is his real personality, the world see's trump as a cut throat business man who will try to buy his way into things, and then sue his way out. It was telling that he has no moral quandary about exploiting loopholes in the law, instead insisting that it's alright because everyone else is doing it. While I'm not a republican, I do hope that Trump stands by his word when it comes to running as an independent. If he runs, the party is in a loose loose situation, as there is no way he could ever win.
The democratic side is also interesting. Hillary has had to weather a few terrible storms in the past few years, from the email scandal, the Jeffery Epstein issue, and the Benghazi debacle, Hillary has a lot of potential weaknesses. I highly doubt that she will survive the smear campaigns that are being developed.
Isn't that a bad thing for Trump though? The fear that he might become an independent seems like something that could have been making some Republicans who preferred other candidates support him.
Isn't that a bad thing for Trump though? The fear that he might become an independent seems like something that could have been making some Republicans who preferred other candidates support him.
The appearance of disloyalty to the party also made a lot of other Republicans hate him. He was booed when he made the original announcement. Trump would not be doing this if he didn't see an advantage in it, and in this case it's not hard to see why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Isn't that a bad thing for Trump though? The fear that he might become an independent seems like something that could have been making some Republicans who preferred other candidates support him.
Actually, the agreement also forces the other republicans to support Trump too.
By theory, if Trump runs a third party the Republicans votes would be split while the Democrats votes are whole. But I do sense if Trump did run third party that he would take both voters from the Democrats and the Republicans (because voters on both sides are not 100% happy with their party) and he would effectually establish a functioning third party. This is why the Democrats are not happy with Hillary. (If they were happy with her they wouldnt be talking about Biden)
I do believe that Ronald Reagan had to signed some kind of agreement in the 1980 election. Although, back in those days he didn't have the internet and if he did run as a third party, Carter would be re-elected.
Actually, the agreement also forces the other republicans to support Trump too.
By theory, if Trump runs a third party the Republicans votes would be split while the Democrats votes are whole. But I do sense if Trump did run third party that he would take both voters from the Democrats and the Republicans (because voters on both sides are not 100% happy with their party) and he would effectually establish a functioning third party. This is why the Democrats are not happy with Hillary. (If they were happy with her they wouldnt be talking about Biden)
I do believe that Ronald Reagan had to signed some kind of agreement in the 1980 election. Although, back in those days he didn't have the internet and if he did run as a third party, Carter would be re-elected.
The problem with this is that Trump's stated views line up with the Republican party line almost completely. I don't think he'd attract a significant number of Democratic voters. And his extreme stances thus far are doing a good job of alienating the undecided moderates. To suggest that he'd be able to draw enough support to establish a legitimate third party seems tenuous at best.
Remember: Trump's current polling numbers are among Republican voters deciding between Republican candidates. They do not reflect how the middle and the left see him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
[quote from="Valanarch »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=119"]This is why the Democrats are not happy with Hillary. (If they were happy with her they wouldnt be talking about Biden)
Anger among Democrats about Hillary Clinton is grossly overstated. Speculation about a Biden run is media hyperbole designed to generate traffic. Biden runs only if Hillary has to drop out.
I thought he handled that pretty well. He basically admitted that he didn't know without dodging the question and said he will know when he needed to. Not having being a position to really have any knowledge of the names is a fair point too imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Supposed?
Based on the makeup of the Senate and Congress, I'd say it's more than 'supposed'.
Having said that, while there's only one woman polling in that list, and three non-white people, it is indeed a good sign for Republican diversity that three of those four are polling over 5% and one is tied for the lead.
I think so. And in fact, if we remove Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum from that list, the list becomes equal parts white men and not-white-men. More not-white-men if we remove Trump.
Or he's just got a group of people who aren't voting for Carson for whatever reason.
You need to stop just focusing on Washington and look at the rest of the country. The populist right movement (I don't really like to call it Tea Party these days because the real Tea Party was hijacked) is very much alive in America and it's bigger than you admit it to be.
Except this is what is creating the civil war in the GOP in the first place. A significant amount of the voting base feels very strongly they are not truly represented by career politicians.
They vote for Republicans begrudgingly. In the past many of these voters held their nose for someone like McCain or Romney but they are likely not going to be doing that for the future as long as the economy continue to stagnate and the country continues to go in a direction they believe is not in their best interests.
Because that's how they've historically voted in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Even if the GOP tried to radically change their image or positions I imagine it wouldn't be enough to coax minorities to vote for them. Trying to seduce minorities has been a lost cause for the GOP for a very long time. It doesn't matter how many minority or female candidates they trot out, they will never get those votes. Case in point: the black population.
African Americans traditionally voted Republican because, like the Latino population, they tended to be more religious and to vote more along religious lines. The past 30 years of Republican policy though have thoroughly alienated them to the point where they almost exclusively vote Democratic these days.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Republicans were originally the party who changed slavery as well which is where some of that originates. I agree though that in general republicans have been sort of alienating minorities more recently. Part of this also comes from the fact that democrats tend to favor policies that support the poor and not to sound racist but there are a lot of minorities found in the lower end of the income bracket in the states.
Taking stances like allowing illegals to become legals also tends to sway all those who were allowed to become citizens to essentially all join the party that allowed them to be citizens as well. I don't like that sort of party recruitment tactic.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I am not saying that both sides don't do it. I think the concept of freeing slaves and giving citizenship to illegals is sort of a drastic comparison. Granted, back then it was done for many of the same reasons, I think comparing the two now seems sort of extreme.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Back on point, I heard an argument about Donald Trump about the ceiling to his support given his general dislike. It was an interesting argument I hadn't really put a lot of thought until it was talked about. Ben Carson on the other hand is generally not disliked (has a higher likeness as a candidate than trump) where as Trump's strong personality will always have a larger group of people who will disapprove of him for who he is. Its an interesting thought which might start showing more as the GOP nomination goes on.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Question is, who of the GOP nominees does this not really apply to? Maybe not to the same extent as Trump, but let's look at the two other frontrunners. Jeb is literally brother to one of the most disliked presidents in modern history, and Cruz has been the head of the "Party of 'No'", who have literally put partisan interests and "making Obama look bad" ahead of the good of the country.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I honestly think the Democratic primary race is more interesting right now, because Clinton is so unexpectedly weak and the party has a dearth of viable alternatives. (Sanders has no more hope than Trump does.) But the GOP race is awash with alternatives, and so once Trump has had his fifteen minutes it's just going to be a pretty normal contest between Bush and Rubio or the other conventional candidates.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure, but when neither party is really changing their stances that have drawn or repelled them, it doesn't seem likely they'll change at the drop of the hat.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Donald Trump signs an agreement saying he will not run as an independent and will endorse any GOP candidate that ends up being picked. Now, to be clear, there's nothing that actually binds Donald Trump to this other than his own word. That being said, this is a big step towards assuaging fears that Trump might become an obstructive independent.
The democratic side is also interesting. Hillary has had to weather a few terrible storms in the past few years, from the email scandal, the Jeffery Epstein issue, and the Benghazi debacle, Hillary has a lot of potential weaknesses. I highly doubt that she will survive the smear campaigns that are being developed.
Edit: Go Libertarians! Go!
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Isn't that a bad thing for Trump though? The fear that he might become an independent seems like something that could have been making some Republicans who preferred other candidates support him.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, the agreement also forces the other republicans to support Trump too.
By theory, if Trump runs a third party the Republicans votes would be split while the Democrats votes are whole. But I do sense if Trump did run third party that he would take both voters from the Democrats and the Republicans (because voters on both sides are not 100% happy with their party) and he would effectually establish a functioning third party. This is why the Democrats are not happy with Hillary. (If they were happy with her they wouldnt be talking about Biden)
I do believe that Ronald Reagan had to signed some kind of agreement in the 1980 election. Although, back in those days he didn't have the internet and if he did run as a third party, Carter would be re-elected.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
The problem with this is that Trump's stated views line up with the Republican party line almost completely. I don't think he'd attract a significant number of Democratic voters. And his extreme stances thus far are doing a good job of alienating the undecided moderates. To suggest that he'd be able to draw enough support to establish a legitimate third party seems tenuous at best.
Remember: Trump's current polling numbers are among Republican voters deciding between Republican candidates. They do not reflect how the middle and the left see him.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Anger among Democrats about Hillary Clinton is grossly overstated. Speculation about a Biden run is media hyperbole designed to generate traffic. Biden runs only if Hillary has to drop out.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"if you ask these candidates, nobody’s going to be able to give you an answer." Now that is something I might agree with him on.
Not surprising, Perry was never a high-tier candidate. Still, it is interesting to see the field begin to thin out.
I thought he handled that pretty well. He basically admitted that he didn't know without dodging the question and said he will know when he needed to. Not having being a position to really have any knowledge of the names is a fair point too imo.