This is why Trump flakes must believe polls are wrong

[BDKJMU]

Too late for that. The die is cast. The time to reject him was prior to the end of the candidate nomination process. The Republican Party is the Party that nominated Donald Trump. The Republican Party is the Party that rallied behind him, casting all sense of principle to the wind, once he was nominated. The Republican Party cannot escape those things.

What do they have to escape? A GOP'er has to be pretty happy today. They've avoided the Scalia vacancy going well to the left from where it was when Gorsuch replace Garland, if Kennedy retires this term they'll get to replace him with a likely more right judge, and of course if one of the older left members of the Court leaves that's even more space to fill with right-leaning judges. The Court was poised to take a dramatic shift to the left and the Trump election has reversed that entirely. And of top of that, in the Trump election the GOP held on to majorities in both chambers of the federal legislature, and almost regardless of what Trump does in the next two years it's very likely the GOP picks up even more seats in the Senate in the midterm elections just based on where the seats are up for re-election. Come 2020, sure, they'll need to find a candidate as it's hard to see Trump deciding to run again at his age, but for the next 4 years the GOP controls the government. I can't imagine they're too upset about that.

Yep. And add on the fact that the GOP controls about 2/3 of governorships & state houses & local elected positions. That isn't likely to change much in the next 4 years either..

[houndawg]

What do they have to escape? A GOP'er has to be pretty happy today. They've avoided the Scalia vacancy going well to the left from where it was when Gorsuch replace Garland, if Kennedy retires this term they'll get to replace him with a likely more right judge, and of course if one of the older left members of the Court leaves that's even more space to fill with right-leaning judges. The Court was poised to take a dramatic shift to the left and the Trump election has reversed that entirely. And of top of that, in the Trump election the GOP held on to majorities in both chambers of the federal legislature, and almost regardless of what Trump does in the next two years it's very likely the GOP picks up even more seats in the Senate in the midterm elections just based on where the seats are up for re-election. Come 2020, sure, they'll need to find a candidate as it's hard to see Trump deciding to run again at his age, but for the next 4 years the GOP controls the government. I can't imagine they're too upset about that.

Yep. And add on the fact that the GOP controls about 2/3 of governorships & state houses & local elected positions. That isn't likely to change much in the next 4 years either..

No wonder we have such shitty government

[JohnStOnge]

It's the long term, fellas. The Democrats already had the advantage there because of evolving demographics. Now the Republicans are the Party of Trump. He is deeply unpopular. Historically unpopular for a new President. And he's just started.

I wouldn't even count on the Supreme Court thing. First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't. Secondly, when the Democrats inevitably achieve sustained dominance they can simply do what FDR threatened to do. They can simply increase the number of Justices on the Court and appoint enough Justices to pack it. They can do that should they think it necessary.

The Republican Party is going to have a very difficult time escaping the stench it has now set about itself.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll just post this here so as not to start another Trump thread.

Trump's whole deal is misinformation. You can't believe a word he says if you have any sense. So here is another example:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2966361

Why? Why once again repeat something that is so demonstrably not true? I'm not sure. But it's very demonstrably not true and Trump does that crap all the time.

So it's very important to him to try to discredit the media so that when the media call him on it his zombies think it's the "very dishonest media."

But the truth is it's the very dishonest Trump.

[Ivytalk]

It's the long term, fellas. The Democrats already had the advantage there because of evolving demographics. Now the Republicans are the Party of Trump. He is deeply unpopular. Historically unpopular for a new President. And he's just started.

I wouldn't even count on the Supreme Court thing. First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't. Secondly, when the Democrats inevitably achieve sustained dominance they can simply do what FDR threatened to do. They can simply increase the number of Justices on the Court and appoint enough Justices to pack it. They can do that should they think it necessary.

The Republican Party is going to have a very difficult time escaping the stench it has now set about itself.

Thanks, John StWassermanSchnutz.

[JohnStOnge]

It's the long term, fellas. The Democrats already had the advantage there because of evolving demographics. Now the Republicans are the Party of Trump. He is deeply unpopular. Historically unpopular for a new President. And he's just started.

I wouldn't even count on the Supreme Court thing. First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't. Secondly, when the Democrats inevitably achieve sustained dominance they can simply do what FDR threatened to do. They can simply increase the number of Justices on the Court and appoint enough Justices to pack it. They can do that should they think it necessary.

The Republican Party is going to have a very difficult time escaping the stench it has now set about itself.

Thanks, John StWassermanSchnutz.

I think you know I'm right. 77% of the vote in the 2004 Presidential election was White. In 2008 it was 74%. In 2012 it was 72%. In 2016 it was 71%. Where do you think the Republican is going to be when it's 65%? 60%? In the not so distant future in historical context it's going to be less than 50%.

And now you've added the Republican Party branding itself as the Party of Trump. In the long term, it's not going to end well for the Republican Party.

[AZGrizFan]

It's the long term, fellas. The Democrats already had the advantage there because of evolving demographics. Now the Republicans are the Party of Trump. He is deeply unpopular. Historically unpopular for a new President. And he's just started.

I wouldn't even count on the Supreme Court thing. First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't. Secondly, when the Democrats inevitably achieve sustained dominance they can simply do what FDR threatened to do. They can simply increase the number of Justices on the Court and appoint enough Justices to pack it. They can do that should they think it necessary.

The Republican Party is going to have a very difficult time escaping the stench it has now set about itself.

Ah. So this is the democrat's long play, huh?

[Gil Dobie]

I'll just post this here so as not to start another Trump thread.

Trump's whole deal is misinformation. You can't believe a word he says if you have any sense. So here is another example:

Trump = Politician
Clinton = Politician
Obama = Politician
Bush = Politician

Politician = misinformation

[Gil Dobie]

[Rob Iola]

It's the long term, fellas. The Democrats already had the advantage there because of evolving demographics. Now the Republicans are the Party of Trump. He is deeply unpopular. Historically unpopular for a new President. And he's just started.

I wouldn't even count on the Supreme Court thing. First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't. Secondly, when the Democrats inevitably achieve sustained dominance they can simply do what FDR threatened to do. They can simply increase the number of Justices on the Court and appoint enough Justices to pack it. They can do that should they think it necessary.

The Republican Party is going to have a very difficult time escaping the stench it has now set about itself.

Gorsuch over Garland is huge. One or two of RBG, Breyer, and Kennedy will likely be replaced in the next term. Another David Souter is certainly a possibility under Trump/Pence, but would have been an absolute certainty under Clinton.

But, FDR and Dems packing the Court? First you gotta win. Right now, you've got nothing. You and Hillary and Robby Mook and Debbie Wasserman Schultz all fell prey to poll watching and completely forgot about retail politics. Argue all you want, but the Republicans control the US government.

[JohnStOnge]

Ah. So this is the democrat's long play, huh?

No. The long play is associated with demographic trends. This just makes trying to find a way to resist what appears to be the nearly inevitable outcome suggested by the demographic trends more difficult.

Unless something changes dramatically there is no way the Republican Party is going to be a factor when the population reaches 50% non White. Probably not when it reaches 40% non White. And it got to the point where the electorate was 29% non White this last time. The future is not bright for the Republican Party.

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

But, FDR and Dems packing the Court? First you gotta win. Right now, you've got nothing. You and Hillary and Robby Mook and Debbie Wasserman Schultz all fell prey to poll watching and completely forgot about retail politics. Argue all you want, but the Republicans control the US government.

I watched the polls but I was saying there was not sufficient evidence to say that either candidate was going to win. Yes, the Republicans control government right now. They won the battle. But, inevitably, the Democrats are going to win the war unless the Republicans change the underlying dynamic.

Look, Trump won 46% of the popular vote running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation. That's a lower percentage of the popular vote than Romney got in 2012. That's with 29% of the vote being non White. What do you think is going to happen when we get to, say, 40% of the vote being non White? And that's going to happen fairly soon in historical terms. What do you think is going to happen if the Republicans don't do something to change the rate at which non Whites vote against them?

Rallying behind Trump was pretty close to the worst thing Republicans could've done with respect to that problem. Short term gain. Long term strategic error.

[GannonFan]

Ah. So this is the democrat's long play, huh?

No. The long play is associated with demographic trends. This just makes trying to find a way to resist what appears to be the nearly inevitable outcome suggested by the demographic trends more difficult.

Unless something changes dramatically there is no way the Republican Party is going to be a factor when the population reaches 50% non White. Probably not when it reaches 40% non White. And it got to the point where the electorate was 29% non White this last time. The future is not bright for the Republican Party.

phpBB [video]

That makes no sense, of course the Republican Party will continue to change. We're in a duopoly and we've always been in a duopoly. The two parties have never stayed the same and have morphed over time over the past 200+ years. You're predicting some weird single party system in the not so distant future. That's just unrealistic. Whatever the Republican party becomes, and frankly the same could be said of whatever the Democratic party becomes, they will both orbit each other in relatively equivalent strength for as long as anyone can see. Not you of course, you can't see by the tree in front of you.

[Skjellyfetti]

First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't.

Hmmmm.

Appointing justices "would would promote [Republicans'] point of view"....?

I wouldn't think a strict constructionist would want judges promoting anyone's view. Just the Constitution and that's it.

[JohnStOnge]

First of all, Republicans have been burned time and time again thinking they appointed somebody who would promote their point of view only to find out that he or she wouldn't.

Hmmmm.

Appointing justices "would would promote [Republicans'] point of view"....?

I wouldn't think a strict constructionist would want judges promoting anyone's view. Just the Constitution and that's it.

The premise is that the Republican point of view is that Judges should follow the original understanding of the Constitution. They've appointed Justices thinking that would happen and it didn't.

[Gil Dobie]

[houndawg]

Hmmmm.

Appointing justices "would would promote [Republicans'] point of view"....?

I wouldn't think a strict constructionist would want judges promoting anyone's view. Just the Constitution and that's it.

The premise is that the Republican point of view is that Judges should follow the original understanding of the Constitution. They've appointed Justices thinking that would happen and it didn't.

They didn't get what they were expecting with Souter for sure.