The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: After Trump Loses, What's Next For The GOP?
Source:
Impact Tap
URL Source: http://theimpacttap.com/2016/10/26/ ... at-comes-next-for-republicans/
Published: Oct 27, 2016
Author: Patrick Glennon
Post Date: 2016-10-27 09:29:40 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 14862
Comments: 105
It is very uncontroversial to say that Donald Trump is – well – controversial. The Republican nominee for president has burned bridges with a number of communities: he mocked a reporter with a disability; he attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents of a fallen solider, alienating veterans and veterans’ families as well as Muslim-Americans; his attacks on women are too many to enumerate here, but a couple of highlights include the “grope” video describing how he sexually assaults women as well as his insinuation that moderator Megyn Kelly was perhaps menstruating during a Republican primary debate last year; he has also continuously suggested that black Americans live in some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape. Much to the chagrin of the majority of the United States electorate, none of these incidents seemed to dent Trump’s popularity among his support base, which helped reenforce the narrative of a viable Trump campaign by turning out in droves to his speaking events. But as we edge closer to the end of this historically bizarre (and exceedingly long) election cycle, it appears a near-certainty that Trump will fall to Clinton on November 8. While Republican senate candidates are faring a little better than their toxic presidential nominee, the fact remains that the “Trump effect” has impacted their poll numbers. The result? Democrats are now the cautious favorite to retake the senate, dividing congress and sapping Republicans of the ability to completely stonewall a Clinton administration. A quick look at the polling map lends some interesting insight into just how divisive Trump has been. Even if they still fall in Trump’s electoral basket come election day, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia have drifted very close to the toss-up column. This is a huge alarm for Republicans, who – following defeat to Barack Obama – drafted a plan to appeal to demographics pushed away by the Republican party’s rhetoric and policy, including millennials and Latin Americans. Even before Trump’s scorched earth campaign, Republicans were worrying about demographic changes that indicate that traditionally safe conservative states – such as those mentioned above – could become more competitive as soon as the year 2020. This cycle did the party no favors; the political transition underway in conservative states may accelerate as Trump’s strategy of catering to white nationalist voters has alienated large swaths of the population Republicans were eager to mollify. Republicans’ task of broadening their appeal will only be further complicated by a post-election Trump, who – analysts are suggesting – could use his formidable base and powerful media allies to target GOP leadership for failing to adequately support the pugnacious nominee. This “Republican civil war” could end in a number of ways. Perhaps it will end with a more 21st century party in-tune with contemporary social norms, women’s rights, and climate change. Or, the party could dissolve entirely. We’ll have to wait and see.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: Roscoe (#39)
Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Leads with a general underestimation of a Rat victory, and does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion. Put some ice on it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You mean like they did after Michigan? Epic fail.
"Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent, polling aggregator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com — who had given the Vermont senator just a 1 percent chance of winning — deemed it 'among the greatest polling errors in primary history.'" Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense.
Straws. Camels. Apparently you're the pussy Trump wants to grab. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Liar. You were spewing "brand" nonsense. Me, post #15: "Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale." The liar is, as always, you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You argued that bad forecasts would damage their brand, therefore they wouldn't deliberately produce such results. I can understand why would want to flee your premise, to the point of pretending is wasn't your actual argument. I've already demolished your brand premise, showing massive large scale bad polling results. Your premise demolished, you crawled back then to your invalid conclusion. The logic abilities of a tpaine. Let's review: "Pollsters vastly underestimated a Republican wave in the 2014 midterms, and last month had an epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points." You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands. When you take a break from sniffing Hillary's cunt, would you like to at least try to address your "brand" premise that crashed and burned so spectacularly?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
OMG!!! The HORROR... Where's the BARF ALERT when you need it???
Hillary and the Cucumbers After losing the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton retired and spent her final sad days puttering around in her garden. She jealously noticed that her even more elderly neighbor, Bernie Sanders, had a garden full of big healthy red tomatoes, but that her tomatoes were all sickly and green. She finally asked Bernie for his gardening secret, and he told her, "Every morning I expose myself in my garden and the tomatoes turn red from embarrassment." For the next few weeks Hillary followed Bernie's example in her own garden, but without the results she hoped for. Not only did her tomatoes stay sickly and green, all of her cucumbers shrank.
One primary is not "large scale." You want to believe that pollsters saw in their surviving their blown 2014 a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please, you go ahead and believe that. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "...the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points." You pathetic cunt sniffing liar.
If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample. Weasel.
I object to your description! It's more accurate to say, "You condescending cunt sniffing liar".
I stand corrected.
The Tribune is still in business, pumping out liberal lies.
Yeah ... well.
As sniffer would say, "Every single one of dozens of news organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad reporting? No sale."
I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please? You go ahead and believe that if you want. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Facts always trigger you cucks.
Take your horse fantasies elsewhere. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Pollsters, weather forecasters and union members -- all bulletproof.
You keep saying that like it means something.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!
My words do mean something. The Constitution Party that you keep pushing was registered in 44 states in 2012 and received app. 2700 votes in each of those states. More people attend one Friday night HS football game than vote for the CP. Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
No, Great and Powerul! Not at all! I ... uh ... was referring to weather. That's it! Weather. Not climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I do! I do! I do! How about if I come back tomorrow?
My point is, when they are wrong it's never held against them.
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
You use the word and when you do others apply that definition. You need to either explain your word or use another. People may begin to think you're being disingenuous.
They might as well write in Pat Paulsen.
My uncle!
Neocon conservatism is dead., Open borders free trade conservatism is dead. Good riddance.
Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate. https://t.co/xZZc3AsfAt— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) October 30, 2016
With Comey's announcement they now have the excuse to show the true polling results. "Trump was down 20 points but, given this newest FBI revelation, he's now up by 6."
Oh, you think I support them with the idea they might win ... how very stupid of you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Anyone besides you? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You and Adams should have read a few sentences further - any 'bias' was in Trump's favor: "Mrs. Clinton would have actually led in The Upshot’s survey if it, like most others, didn’t weight by party registration." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Comments (81 - 105) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWho would hold them accountable for pushing their/your pro-Hillary agenda through polling results?
#42. To: Roscoe (#40)
The problem with polls
#43. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
Those who purchase, or heed, their results - by ceasing to do so.
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.
#45. To: Roscoe (#43)
You mean like they did after Michigan?
#46. To: Roscoe (#44)
'does not say the errors were committed knowingly as is the topic of discussion.'
#47. To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
(Edited)
"Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale."
#48. To: Willie Green (#0)
#49. To: CZ82 (#48)
#50. To: CZ82 (#48)
#51. To: Roscoe (#47)
You haven't shown that those massive bad results damaged any of those pollsters brands.
#52. To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
One primary is not "large scale."
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
(Edited)
"Misrepresenting accurate results wouldn't affect their reps as providers of accurate results."
#54. To: Roscoe (#52)
"You pathetic cunt sniffing liar."
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
#56. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
Every single one of dozens of organizations is knowingly diminishing its brand value with bad forecasts? No sale.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
"I stand corrected."
#58. To: misterwhite (#56)
#59. To: misterwhite (#53)
If they oversampled Democrats by 50%, wouldn't their results still be accurate? Certainly not representative, but still accurate given the sample.
#60. To: misterwhite (#56)
The Tribune is still in business
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
#62. To: Roscoe (#61)
trigger
#63. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
"And from this pollsters have concluded they have a blank check to forecast any damn thing they please?"
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
#65. To: Vinny (#64)
#66. To: misterwhite (#63)
weather forecasters
#67. To: misterwhite (#63)
weather forecasters
#68. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
You keep saying that like it means something.
#69. To: Roscoe (#67)
(Edited)
"You dare question Global Warming/Climate Change?!"
#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
"They make no attempt to be accurate? Those weather system predictions they show are from random generators?"
#71. To: Vinny (#68)
"... app. 2700 votes in each of those states."
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#59)
"I don't agree with that definition of "accurate" and don't use it."
#73. To: misterwhite (#71)
Yet, but those voters are "sending a message". And that message is, "I'm too stupid to vote".
#74. To: Vinny (#73)
"They might as well write in Pat Paulsen."
#75. To: Willie Green (#0)
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
#77. To: Roscoe (#76)
"Pollsters will scramble in the final week to explain why they are not fraudulent, just inaccurate."
#78. To: Vinny (#68)
Your party isn't simply a non factor, it's an embarrassment.
#79. To: misterwhite (#72)
others apply that definition.
#80. To: Roscoe (#76)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]