Trump's failed presidency is pushing the country further to the left

[TitanTiger 20,499]

 

Quote

It’s Trump’s Revolution

His supporters wanted a bulwark against liberalism. But his failed presidency is pushing the country to the left.

 

In 1804, the Corsican upstart Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself as France’s emperor. His mother, born Letizia Ramolino, did not attend the coronation. Informed of her son’s self-elevation, she is said to have remarked coolly: “Let’s hope it lasts.”

In conversations with conservative friends about the Trump presidency these last three years, I often found myself thinking about Mother Bonaparte. Before Donald Trump’s election I made a lot of dire predictions about how his mix of demagogy and incompetence would interact with real world threats: I envisioned economic turmoil, foreign policy crises, sustained domestic unrest. Having lived through the failed end of the last Republican presidency, I assumed Trump’s administration would be a second, swifter failure, with dire consequences for both the country and the right.

In 2017, 2018, 2019, those predictions didn’t come to pass. Trump was bad in many ways, but the consequences weren’t what I anticipated. The economy surged; the world was relatively stable; the country was mad online but otherwise relatively calm. And as the Democrats shifted leftward and Trump delivered on his promised judicial appointments, many conservatives who had shared my apprehensions would tell me that, simply as a shield against the left, the president was doing enough to merit their support in 2020.

To which I often murmured something like, “let’s hope it lasts.”

It hasn’t. Now we are in the retreat-from-Moscow phase of the Trump presidency, with crises arriving all together — pandemic, recession, mass protests — and the president incapable of coping. If the election were held today, the result could easily resemble 2008, the closest thing to a landslide our divided system has recently produced. Meanwhile across corporate and journalistic and academic America, a 1968-ish spirit is pulling liberalism toward an uncertain destination, with what remains of conservatism turtled for safety or extinct.

In this environment, few conservatives outside the MAGA core would declare Trump’s presidency a ringing success. But many will stand by him out of a sense of self-protection, hoping a miracle keeps him in the White House as a firewall against whatever post-2020 liberalism might become.

This is a natural impulse, but they should consider another possibility: That so long as he remains in office, Trump will be an accelerant of the right’s erasure, an agent of its marginalization and defeat, no matter how many of his appointees occupy the federal bench.

In situations of crisis or grave difficulty, Trump displays three qualities, three spirits, that all redound against the movement that he leads. His spirit of authoritarianism creates a sense of perpetual crisis among his opponents, uniting left-wingers and liberals despite their differences. His spirit of chaos, the sense that nothing is planned or under control, turns moderates and normies against him. And finally his spirit of incompetence means that conservatives get far less out of his administration than they would from a genuine imperial president, a man of iron rather than of pasteboard.

You can see the convergence of these spirits in the disaster at Lafayette Park, where an authoritarian instinct led to a chaotic and violent police intervention, a massive media freakout, blowback from the military — and left the president with an impious photo op and control of six blocks around the White House to show for it.

That last image, the president as a dictator of an island and impotent beyond it, seems like a foretaste of what would await conservatives if Trump somehow slipped through to a second term. Maybe he would get to replace another Supreme Court justice — maybe. (In a Democratic Senate, not.) But everything else the right needs would slip further out of reach.

Conservatism needs a response to the current movement for social justice that answers just claims and rejects destructive ones. Trump delivers a conservatism of Confederate war memorials that vindicates the left.

Conservatism needs new ideas about how to use power, a better theory of the relationship between state, economy and culture than the decadent Reaganism that Trump half-overthrew. Trump offers only a daily lesson in how to let power go to waste.

Conservatism needs a way to either claim more space in America’s existing elite institutions, or else a path to building new ones. Trump offers a retreat to the fortresses of OANN, TPUSA, QAnon.

Above all, conservatism, now a worldview for old people and contrarians in a country trending leftward, needs a mix of converts and sympathizers to be something other than a rump. Trump did win some converts in 2016, but he has spent four years making far more enemies, and their numbers are growing every day.

What we are seeing right now in America, an accelerated leftward shift, probably won’t continue at this pace through 2024. But it’s likely to continue in some form so long as Trump is conservatism, and conservatism is Trump — and four more years of trying to use him as a defensive salient is not a strategy of survival, but defeat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/opinion/sunday/trump-presidency.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I don't know what else to say here.  He echoes many of my concerns with Trump in the Oval Office.  I worried about this sort of thing even if you somehow, some way put aside the alarming lack of morality - that the reaction to Trump was going to be not like a mild course correction, but rather a slingshot to the other extreme.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Good read.  It's weird to say this, but the most Republican candidate by traditional standards in this election is very likely Joe Biden.  It's why I think he wins running away.  The traditional, moderate-right Republicans won't have a problem voting for him.  And until Republicans get back to nominating more middle of the road candidates, they will continue to lose ground in the ever growing suburbs.

[homersapien 11,395]

Well, unsurprisingly, I take issue with "other extreme", but I agree there will be a reaction to the Trump presidency. In fact, I've felt that one of the (long term) "benefits" of Trump being elected was just such a pendulum swing back to the liberal democracy that America supposedly stands for, one that includes both parties.

Here's a similar editorial from the WaPo sounding the same theme:

This is a moment where we can make the impossible possible

 

E.J. Dionne Jr. 

Columnist

June 14, 2020 at 4:14 p.m. EDT

The horror leaps off the screen as state troopers, wielding whips and billy clubs, mercilessly beat peaceful civil rights demonstrators who have made their way reverently across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala.

In portraying the assault on the March 7, 1965, demonstration in all its brutality, the 2014 movie “Selma” makes clear why that day is forever known as “Bloody Sunday.”

And by interspersing the portrayal of violence with scenes of Americans recoiling in revulsion as their television sets bring the cruelty into their living rooms, the film tells an additional truth: A single, traumatic event can change minds, move consciences and galvanize a nation.

Five months after Bloody Sunday, on Aug. 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

There are moments when the impossible suddenly becomes possible. Our time must be one of them.

The sheer evil of George Floyd’s killing on May 25, which was captured by cellphone and broadcast to the world, has transformed us in ways no one anticipated on May 24.

A case can be made that the ground was prepared by a growing revulsion over President Trump’s racist divisiveness and the progressive impulses of a diverse younger generation.

But what police officer Derek Chauvin did to Floyd brought home to white Americans the truth of African American vulnerability and oppression in a way that could not be pushed aside.

“We saw a person martyred before our very eyes,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of columnists last week. “We saw it. We didn’t hear about it. It wasn’t reported. We didn’t see a film later. We saw a person martyred before our very eyes: eight minutes and 46 seconds. It’s a long time. It’s a long time. . . . That is not who Americans think we are.”

Of course, as Pelosi suggested later, it should not have taken that video to remind white Americans that the events “before our very eyes” were very much part of the United States that African Americans have always known. It should not have taken Bloody Sunday to create a sense of urgency for voting rights, either.

But what will we do with this moment? We should bear in mind that white Americans have a history of giving up the fight for racial justice in ways that African Americans cannot.

Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War was demolished by the white terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan along with white reaction and indifference in the North. The great progress toward racial equality of the mid-1960s was followed by a long backlash that began later in the decade and culminated in Trump’s ascent.

Still, it matters that Trump is pulling all the traditional backlash levers — and, so far, nothing is happening.

He shouts on Twitter about “LAW & ORDER!,” speaks of “dominating” the streets and defends Confederate monuments as “heritage,” never noting that the “heritage” in question is white supremacy, the monuments having been erected to celebrate the rise of Jim Crow or, later, to resist dismantling it.

Yet those who cowered before Trump (the National Football League comes to mind) are cowering no longer. Arguments for Confederate symbols that seemed insurmountable only weeks ago are suddenly deemed tone-deaf as the military expresses openness to removing the names of Confederate leaders from its bases and NASCAR bans the Confederate flag.

Do not underestimate the importance of this: The durability of nostalgia for the Confederacy is a mark of our 155-year failure to declare the issues of the Civil War as finally settled.

But the coming months are critical as the news turns inevitably back to the resurgence of the novel coronavirus. Former vice president Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress have an obligation to turn the shock of moral recognition from Floyd’s murder into a movement for a new community.

Precisely because Biden is widely seen as a traditional figure of restoration, he has been given a historic opportunity to argue that restoration demands change. To become “who we think we are,” Americans must break decisively not only with the Trumpian present but also with the long history of reaction the president represents.

More than that: Biden can make the case, as he has begun to, that those who genuinely seek, yes, law and order must embrace justice and reform as the only alternatives to fragmentation and ongoing chaos. We will continue to be tormented, as the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer observed, as long as we refuse to deal comprehensively with our legacy of racism.

“No justice, no peace” is not just a slogan. It is a truthful statement. For the first time in a long time, a large majority of Americans, moved by realities they can no longer deny, seem ready to sign up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-a-moment-where-we-can-make-the-impossible-possible/2020/06/14/80ce7204-ace7-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html

 

[homersapien 11,395]

And here's another with the same theme, that perhaps approaches your concern of the "other extreme" (or perhaps not):

Why Democrats have an extraordinary opening

By

Jennifer Rubin 

Opinion writer

June 15, 2020 at 7:45 a.m. EDT

Democrats have a once-in-a-generation opportunity, akin to the first civil rights era, to reorder our politics. In the 1960s, southern whites shifted to the Republicans, while nonwhite voters in cities and young voters went to the Democrats. Now the tectonic plates are shifting once more. NBC News explains what has happened to the two parties:

Republicans have actually grown their advantage among white voters who do not have a college degree. They now hold a 24-point party ID edge with that group. In 2015, the GOP held a 21-point lead with them.

But among whites with a college degree, the numbers have moved sharply in the other direction. Democrats and Republicans drew equal support among that group in 2015, 47 percent identified with each party. But in the latest data whites with a college degree leaned Democratic by 12 points.

Many of those college-educated voters are the “suburban white women” you keep hearing about, who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in 2018. That gender gap has widened into a canyon. (In 2015, Democrats had a 12-point advantage with women; now Democrats have a 18-point lead.) Simply put, the anti-science, white grievance, bully-boy politics of the Republican Party under President Trump turns off people who do not want to be viewed as uneducated, racist or mean. It turns out that is a very broad coalition.

The policy shift also favors Democrats. For the first time, you have a significant majority of white Americans who think there is a need for systemic change. Coupled with the preference of most Americans for more government (spurred in part by the need for government action to battle the coronavirus and the ensuing economic recession), the party that is aligned with addressing racial inequity and that believes government can be a force for good has a huge advantage. Republicans anti-government ethos is entirely ill-suited to the time.

Democrats may have the voters and the ideological consensus not only to win big in November (a sweep of the House and Senate majorities and the White House is a distinct possibility) but also to drive a progressive agenda on criminal justice, health care, economic opportunity and education. Democrats will need to address several issues if they are to not only win big but also govern boldly.

First, I suspect the Senate filibuster is on thinner ice than ever before. If Democrats win big (claiming the White House and the Senate majority), they will be in no mood to see an entire agenda stymied by a minority of senators from red states. I personally have grave reservations about doing away with the filibuster, but concern about minority rights is likely to be subsumed by enthusiasm for an aggressive agenda, one that might include some systemic changes in voting rights (automatic registration, voting by mail available in all 50 states, an end to voter ID laws, etc.) that would help Democrats down the road.

Second, if Democrats want to pass their proposals and lock in Democratic majorities for decades (as Franklin D. Roosevelt did), they will need to hold to the center-left where, not coincidentally, former vice president Joe Biden put himself. The public wants reform and change, but it is far from clear whether they want a radical agenda. Expanding Obamacare rather than doing away with it, creating a tax reform bill that undoes the excesses of the Trump era and equalizes the rates for capital gains and salary income, offering free community college tuition and advocating significant reforms in policing, sentencing and pot legalization would gain broad support. The Democrats will run into trouble if they put their energies into items such as single-payer health care. They have a narrow window to do real things; overreaching risks them getting very little.

Third, the pandemic itself cleared the way for progress on a raft of issues: paid sick leave, subsidized child care and distance learning. In some cases, these items require expansion of infrastructure (e.g., universally accessible broadband). Even Republicans may finally see that you cannot have a healthy population without paid sick leave or a robust labor market without child care.

Democrats must win and win big in November if they hope to gather support for what may amount to a new New Deal. If they play their cards right, they can have as dramatic an effect on the scope of government and on the electoral landscape as did the original New Deal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/15/why-democrats-have-an-extraordinary-opening/

[BobLouder 7]

 

Man, y'all sure do like to post whole articles.  So, before a once every 100 years Pandemic showed up ... from China ... Trump was a lock to win the Presidency.  Then, a bad cop killed a black man and the Left Media and the Radicals came out of the woodwork.  Anybody who thinks all the stuff that is going on now would have been as bad in a non election year need to get an RX of something.  A large portion of this stuff is organized.

Trump can't help himself.  He is a moron.  But, this was a lock election for Trump before March 1 of this year.

 

[homersapien 11,395]

11 hours ago, BobLouder said:

 

Man, y'all sure do like to post whole articles.  So, before a once every 100 years Pandemic showed up ... from China ... Trump was a lock to win the Presidency.  Then, a bad cop killed a black man and the Left Media and the Radicals came out of the woodwork.  Anybody who thinks all the stuff that is going on now would have been as bad in a non election year need to get an RX of something.  A large portion of this stuff is organized.

Trump can't help himself.  He is a moron.  But, this was a lock election for Trump before March 1 of this year.

 

Nope. 

Trump's meltdown was virtually pre-ordained. Because - like you said - he's a moron and incompetent.  He's been lucky for the last three years not to have to deal with a national crisis - at least one not of his own making (Puerto Rican's might disagree), but sooner or later, s*** happens. 

In this case it was a pandemic and an extraordinary example of police brutality.  But it might have been a hurricane, act of terrorism or something else.  Whatever, it was going to be, he would flub the response and fail just as he is failing with the pandemic and the racial crisis/awakening. 

Just look at his Tulsa rally for proof.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, BobLouder said:

So, before a once every 100 years Pandemic showed up ... from China ... Trump was a lock to win the Presidency.  

No he wasn't.

 

11 hours ago, BobLouder said:

Then, a bad cop killed a black man and the Left Media and the Radicals came out of the woodwork.  Anybody who thinks all the stuff that is going on now would have been as bad in a non election year need to get an RX of something.  A large portion of this stuff is organized.

Trump can't help himself.  He is a moron.  But, this was a lock election for Trump before March 1 of this year.

The only true thing in that entire yarn was "Trump can't help himself.  He is a moron."  The rest is just silliness.

Did he have a better chance before the pandemic and all the racial unrest?  Sure.  But those by themselves didn't damage his chances.  He's not being carried along by forces utterly beyond his control to manage.  It's his handling of the pandemic and the racial unrest that has hurt him.  The federal response to the pandemic has been bumbling.  He frequently says things that indicate he's far more concerned with what his PR looks like with regard to COVID-19 than he is actually trying to help us shepherd the country through it.  He's been (at best) tone deaf on racial matters the entire time, so his hamfisted remarks on it now only exacerbates the problem.

In a nutshell, to a significant portion of people, Trump is increasingly seen as incompetent in a crisis and they are not wrong.  But even then, he's less concerned about actually *being* competent than he is *appearing* competent.  

If he loses in November, it's not because of unforeseen circumstances that he had not way of overcoming.  It's because of his own words and actions (or inaction as the case may be).  As it has been since the beginning, he might be his own best marketer, but he's also his own worst enemy.  He's done far more to blow holes in his own ship than even the worst of the Democrats and complicit media could ever do.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

I would say the push from the progressive left gave rise to a Trump presidency in the first place, not the other way around. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

43 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I would say the push from the progressive left gave rise to a Trump presidency in the first place, not the other way around. 

It was a combination of things.  There was a definite "anti-experience" vibe in the GOP primaries - people who wanted a perceived outsider no matter who it was (as well as a certain blindness to the fact that a Wall Street crony isn't any better than a DC insider).  But by the time the general election rolled around I think a combination of Hillary being a terrible person and running a terrible campaign created an opening for him to squeak it out.  Her presence energized some Republicans to turnout to vote against her, but probably more important, she failed to energize her own side.  There was a large drop-off in turn out from Obama's elections in '08 and '12, especially among black voters.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Really, I am asking here fior anyone that wants to try and take a stab at it. What does "Conservative" mean today?

1) Total commitment to profits by sacrificing all benefits of employees to the point where the Middle Class just dies out? 
2) The "Restraining of Govt Restraining the Manic Needs of the Few to become even more wealthy?"
3) Blindly and Mindlessly Spending even more $$$ for Weapons we wont use against an enemy we cant name?
4) Dont even get me started socially? What does Conservative mean Socially? it used to mean that people at least pretended to care about Morals, Intergrity, Character, and Ethics. Not any more. DJT makes a mockery of all that?
5) What does it mean w/r to Racial Relations?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, want to tell me what you think Conservativism means Today? I for one, have no clue. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

I would say the push from the progressive left gave rise to a Trump presidency in the first place, not the other way around. 

Problem: We arent Left at all in America. Compared to the rest of the world we are just a middle of the road corporate democracy that means little to nothing other than make a few dozen people filthy rich.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

Really, I am asking here fior anyone that wants to try and take a stab at it. What does "Conservative" mean today?

1) Total commitment to profits by sacrificing all benefits of employees to the point where the Middle Class just dies out? 
2) The "Restraining of Govt Restraining the Manic Needs of the Few to become even more wealthy?"
3) Blindly and Mindlessly Spending even more $$$ for Weapons we wont use against an enemy we cant name?
4) Dont even get me started socially? What does Conservative mean Socially? it used to mean that people at least pretended to care about Morals, Intergrity, Character, and Ethics. Not any more. DJT makes a mockery of all that?
5) What does it mean w/r to Racial Relations?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, want to tell me what you think Conservativism means Today? I for one, have no clue. 

What does "liberal" mean today? Certainly not all conservatives are fans of DJT as not all liberals are fans of all "liberal" candidates. Many conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians could be lumped together as "centrists". 

[AUDub 11,158]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

There was a definite "anti-experience" vibe in the GOP primaries - people who wanted a perceived outsider no matter who it was (as well as a certain blindness to the fact that a Wall Street crony isn't any better than a DC insider). 

There was an important takeaway from that primary that the dems were careful to avoid this cycle - a huge field splitting the vote. Could Trump have won head to head against a moderate in the 16 primary? I seriously doubt it.

The dems, in contrast, all consolidated around Biden around the South Carolina primary. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

There was an important takeaway from that primary that the dems were careful to avoid this cycle - a huge field splitting the vote. Could Trump have won head to head against a moderate in the 16 primary? I seriously doubt it.

The dems, in contrast, all consolidated around Biden around the South Carolina primary. 

The Republican primary system also encourages candidates to stay in longer, thus splitting the field for a longer period.  Winner take all in so many states makes it to where if you hit a few home runs, you're still viable.  Can't do that in the Democratic primary where consistency tends to rule the day due to proportional delegates.

[DKW 86 7,431]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

What does "liberal" mean today? Certainly not all conservatives are fans of DJT as not all liberals are fans of all "liberal" candidates. Many conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians could be lumped together as "centrists". 

There are two parts of the term Liberal. "Liberal" is actually the Democrat Party (DNC) and the Progressives that may be about to part from the DNC Side. 

The DNC is, by and large, Republican Light. They get so much funding from Wall Street that they are really sold out to what the Wall Streeters have to say. The influence from the Clinton and the New Democrat Coalition is about as strong as ever. They are centrist to the point that they tend to be hard to distinguish from some parts of the Republican Party. Most remember the "Triangulation Strategy" used by the Clinton Adm. This is that part of the Liberal Side. It is very business friendly, Wall Street Friendly, more Hawkish than traditional Democrats have been over the years. Citizens United has been a boom to fund raising for this part. This is really the part of the Liberals that wildly support Washington DC Status Quo. They include Democrats that voted for the Afghan and Iraq Wars. They Are largely Pro-Defense Industry. They have members that have been in office for 25-30-35-40 or more years. 

The Progressive side, is really largely Bernie Sanders supporters. They have rejected the Status Quo nature of the DNC. They have been a voiceless part of the Liberal Coalition for a long while now and they are looking for other ways to get their points and policies across. They are openly talking about a third party. They are no longer satisfied with being committed to the DNC-NDC and being all but completely ignored by the Traditional, New Democrat side of the DNC. 
Progressive Policies such as M4A, Student Debt Forgiveness, Higher Progressive Tax Rates, Sharing the Wealth, Substantially raised Minimum Wage, Green New Deal, Climate Change Action now, tend to separate the two sides of the "Liberals." 

I know I didnt get it all correct, but I tried. Anyone want to define the Conservatives?

See this:
The Democrat Party is actually Three Parties. 

or this:
Six Wings of the Democrat Party
Personally think this is too detailed a break down, too granular.

 

[SocialCircle 570]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Really, I am asking here fior anyone that wants to try and take a stab at it. What does "Conservative" mean today?

1) Total commitment to profits by sacrificing all benefits of employees to the point where the Middle Class just dies out? 
2) The "Restraining of Govt Restraining the Manic Needs of the Few to become even more wealthy?"
3) Blindly and Mindlessly Spending even more $$$ for Weapons we wont use against an enemy we cant name?
4) Dont even get me started socially? What does Conservative mean Socially? it used to mean that people at least pretended to care about Morals, Intergrity, Character, and Ethics. Not any more. DJT makes a mockery of all that?
5) What does it mean w/r to Racial Relations?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, want to tell me what you think Conservativism means Today? I for one, have no clue. 

How does Trump make a mockery of it when he isn’t a conservative? 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Really, I am asking here fior anyone that wants to try and take a stab at it. What does "Conservative" mean today?

1) Total commitment to profits by sacrificing all benefits of employees to the point where the Middle Class just dies out? 
2) The "Restraining of Govt Restraining the Manic Needs of the Few to become even more wealthy?"
3) Blindly and Mindlessly Spending even more $$$ for Weapons we wont use against an enemy we cant name?
4) Dont even get me started socially? What does Conservative mean Socially? it used to mean that people at least pretended to care about Morals, Intergrity, Character, and Ethics. Not any more. DJT makes a mockery of all that?
5) What does it mean w/r to Racial Relations?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, want to tell me what you think Conservativism means Today? I for one, have no clue. 

I don’t really know what it means in today’s world, but what I do know is that a lot of swingers are conservative. 

[AUDub 11,158]

55 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

How does Trump make a mockery of it when he isn’t a conservative? 

For not being conservative,  "conservatives" sure seem to like him. 

[SocialCircle 570]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

For not being conservative,  "conservatives" sure seem to like him. 

Of course most conservatives like him better than the alternatives offered up by the other party. That shouldn’t be surprising at all. 

[AUDub 11,158]

2 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Of course most conservatives like him better than the alternatives offered up by the other party. That shouldn’t be surprising at all. 

This is a bit different from the usual reluctant acceptance of an awful individual because your policy goals align. Trump seems to have a legit cult of personality and seems to have hijacked the conservative movement. Sure you've got your squeaky wheels, your David French's and Jonah Goldberg's that are pretty vocal, but they're most definitely in the minority. 

[SocialCircle 570]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is a bit different from the usual reluctant acceptance of an awful individual because your policy goals align. Trump seems to have a legit cult of personality and seems to have hijacked the conservative movement. Sure you've got your squeaky wheels, your David French's and Jonah Goldberg's that are pretty vocal, but they're most definitely in the minority. 

My friends who are right of center are split about 50/50.  About half of them will vote for him because they are voting against the alternative and about half of them will vote for him because of him. I don't personally know anyone who leans right of center that is not voting for him. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

My friends who are right of center are split about 50/50.  About half of them will vote for him because they are voting against the alternative and about half of them will vote for him because of him. I don't personally know anyone who leans right of center that is not voting for him. 

*raises hand*

[AUDub 11,158]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

My friends who are right of center are split about 50/50.  About half of them will vote for him because they are voting against the alternative and about half of them will vote for him because of him. I don't personally know anyone who leans right of center that is not voting for him. 

Another thing, the mindset that gave us Trump seems to be spreading. Example:

There are people running in two dozen districts as Republicans that sort talk this way. Qanon, conspiracy theories, racism etc. It's hard to find an equivalent on the other side of the aisle. The left has its share crazies, yeah, but on matters of scale there's not much comparison. Louise Mensch isn't running for congress in two dozen districts.

[DKW 86 7,431]

16 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

How does Trump make a mockery of it when he isn’t a conservative? 

For better or worse, he is their Nominee and Champion/Leader at this time. 

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I don’t really know what it means in today’s world, but what I do know is that a lot of swingers are conservative. 

This is sssooo funny. And its only funny because it is true. My Dad ran around with members of one of the "key clubs" in our home town. Everyone of them was Conservative, Most attended church regularly, small business owners that essentially all got divorced between 45-55 and married far younger.

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

For not being conservative,  "conservatives" sure seem to like him. 

The other side of the coin is: "There aint no Lberals liking him"...at least any more.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

This is sssooo funny. And its only funny because it is true. My Dad ran around with members of one of the "key clubs" in our home town. Everyone of them was Conservative, Most attended church regularly, small business owners that essentially all got divorced between 45-55 and married far younger.

 

Now there are a lot of nurses and teachers, I would say that those two professions make up nearly 40% total. My wife is a teacher.....and we own a minority share in a prominent LS club in Houston. Talk about a group of people that have a bunch of people that are prejudice against them.......