2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

Such a rep whore move... take your f'ing reps,...... whore

You prefer he choose Joe Biden? Bernie?

 

[NDgradstudent]

To the Crazy 'Family Value' Christians who ran the Republican Party into the ground I say don't let the door hit you in the ass while you're on the way out.

Trump would be a bad President, better than Clinton, but still pretty bad. That said, if him getting the ticket allows the right to once and for all put these narrow minded idiots back under the rock rather than giving them power...GOOD!

Maybe then we can focus on fiscal policy rather than chasing the tail on issues like abortion and pro-homophobic policy.

In which election would you say that 'family values' Christians cost the Republicans a victory? Again, see the chart above. The economy is the main driver of Presidential election results.

The Republican party has only won a majority of the popular vote in a Presidential election once since 1988. As I recall, 'family values' issues played a role in that victory (2004).

Bear in mind too that the clustering of Democrats (three of the five most populous states are blue, and only one red) gives them a built-in advantage in Presidential elections and the spread of Republicans gives them a built-in advantage in the House elections.

It's not as if the GOP has squandered this advantage. Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate and in most state legislatures, which are the places where abortion policy and many other 'social issues' are dealt with, at least in part.

 

[woolybug25]

Imagine this... A future party of evangelicals that utilize the liberal philosophies of government aid, free [\insert healthcare, college, etc here] and strong federal over reach in order to get a strong hold on the poor, the religious and the people that want live off of the government.

I've spoke before about how odd I find it that Republicans don't register more with African Americans. A great deal of the community is highly religious and connect better with republican social issues. Hell, slaves were freed by a republican. But the welfare state, the war on drugs, gun laws, the racist image of the GOP and affirmative action principles have always stood in the way.

Could this be a turning point where the Republican Party becomes the Nationalist Party? Where they throw away the principles of small government, conservative economics and limited taxation for preservation of evangelical values? It would be a party that would be a frightening turn for our country, one in which would have a large following.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Imagine this... A future party of evangelicals that utilize the liberal philosophies of government aid, free [\insert healthcare, college, etc here] and strong federal over reach in order to get a strong hold on the poor, the religious and the people that want live off of the government.

I've spoke before about how odd I find it that Republicans don't register more with African Americans. A great deal of the community is highly religious and connect better with republican social issues. Hell, slaves were freed by a republican. But the welfare state, the war on drugs, gun laws, the racist image of the GOP and affirmative action principles have always stood in the way.

Could this be a turning point where the Republican Party becomes the Nationalist Party? Where they throw away the principles of small government, conservative economics and limited taxation for preservation of evangelical values? It would be a party that would be a frightening turn for our country, one in which would have a large following.

First, this was basically the Bush/Rove approach of "compassionate conservatism." And it worked in 2004, albeit barely: Bush did relatively better among blacks and Hispanics. Trump is not so far from this routine either, at least in terms of policy. He is of course much less openly religious than Bush et al.

Secondly, to the extent 'social issues' matter, they matter much more among middle class and upper class voters, at least in determining which party they vote for (black people might care just as much about them but the evidence is that they don't play a major role in how black people vote). Contrary to popular belief, poor whites still vote Democratic at a higher rate than rich whites; social issues play a minor role. So in Indiana, say, a Republican will probably win 65-75% of 'rich' voters, but in Connecticut (which has more such voters) a Republican would probably only win 50% of that group (in a presidential election. It o of course varies more with state and local races). Andrew Gelman has a good article on this.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Imagine this... A future party of evangelicals that utilize the liberal philosophies of government aid, free [\insert healthcare, college, etc here] and strong federal over reach in order to get a strong hold on the poor, the religious and the people that want live off of the government.

I've spoke before about how odd I find it that Republicans don't register more with African Americans. A great deal of the community is highly religious and connect better with republican social issues. Hell, slaves were freed by a republican. But the welfare state, the war on drugs, gun laws, the racist image of the GOP and affirmative action principles have always stood in the way.

Could this be a turning point where the Republican Party becomes the Nationalist Party? Where they throw away the principles of small government, conservative economics and limited taxation for preservation of evangelical values? It would be a party that would be a frightening turn for our country, one in which would have a large following.

Now that is a plausible successor to the GOP. Proudly patriotic, America-first nationalists v. the elitist, cosmopolitan global citizens-of-nowhere. This is already playing out across Europe. The problem with it is that nationalists need something to rally around-- race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Modern America is too racially and religiously diverse for that to effectively happen. Which is probably a good thing.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Credit where it's due - fantastic posts by ndgradstudent. Thanks for the knowledge bombs.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

cc: wizards

cc: wizards

Bloomberg View's Ramesh Ponnuru just published an article titled, "Hate Trump Voters? You've Got a Problem.":

Political campaigns are supposed to kick off debates about how we should feel about the candidates. Donald Trump's campaign has started a debate about how we should feel about the candidate's supporters, too.

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens was early in taking the fight against Trump to his fans. “If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling,” he wrote in August. More recently, Gabriel Schoenfeld has written in the New York Daily News that “all Trump voters can and should be held to account” for flocking to a candidate who combines low character with hostility to constitutional freedoms. Conservatives, he added, should not address these voters “with sympathy.” James Kirchick, in the Tablet, says we should “not respect anyone” who supports Trump, nor “explain away” this “bad behavior.”

Should people even stay friends with Trump supporters? After Peter Wehner, another fierce conservative opponent of Trump, argued in the New York Times that friendship should come before political disagreements, Isaac Chotiner criticized Wehner in Slate for this softness: Trump caters to bigotry, which is worth ending a friendship over.

A lot of Trump supporters, I’d venture, do not yearn to dwell in the good graces of Chotiner, Schoenfeld et al. They already think that people who oppose Trump look down on them, and it’s one reason they are backing him. When anti-Trumpists openly announce they have no respect for Trump voters and wish to shun them, they just confirm these Trump supporters’ view and harden their resolve.

Blanket hostility to Trump supporters isn’t just counterproductive; it’s unjustified. I’ll admit it is sometimes tempting. Almost all of my interactions with Trump supporters have been online and unhappy. A lot of them have consisted of racist jibes at me (I’m supposed to go back where I came from, which incidentally is a pleasant land called Kansas City), followed by my quick use of the delete key for e-mail and the mute button for Twitter.

Other commentators I know who oppose Trump tell me they, too, have been experiencing much more racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny than ever before.

Even the non-racist feedback I’ve gotten from Trump fans has tended to be unreasoning, hypersensitive -- especially galling coming from people who assail “political correctness” so much -- or just plain stupid. If there’s any of it I find amusing, it’s when people use anonymous accounts to call Trump’s critics a bunch of wimps.

Luckily, Twitter isn’t at all representative of the American public, and neither are website comment sections. They could be an especially bad proxy for the roughly 10 million people who have voted for Trump. Kirchick has done valuable reporting on white-nationalist support for Trump. But most of Trump's voters aren’t hiding under the same rocks as the “alt right”; most of them haven’t heard of it.

People who disdain Trump voters en masse are, it seems to me, confusing two questions: Should an intelligent and decent person back Trump? And can an intelligent and decent person back Trump? I’m a firm no on the first question. But the answer to the second question is yes.

Someone -- a lot of someones -- might think that mass immigration is lowering wages, that Trump is the only candidate who would try to do something about it, and that he should therefore be president. Or someone might think that our government has been dysfunctional for a long time, that we need someone who is not beholden to the orthodoxies of either party to fix it, and that Trump fits the bill. Or someone might think it’s important for Republicans to win the White House, and Trump has shown such surprising political strength that he is the best candidate for that purpose.

All of these arguments are, I believe, seriously defective. They don’t “justify” voting for Trump, as Kirchick puts it. But these are not obviously delusional or hateful reasons for supporting him. They are not different in kind, morally or intellectually, from the reasons tens of millions of people voted for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012.

To support Trump for these reasons requires looking away from a lot: his ignorance of many basic facts about American government, his encouragement of violence toward protesters, his advocacy of war crimes, and more: It’s a distressingly long list. But we should not assume that most of his voters are fully aware of all of these things, let alone that they are choosing him because of them.

Living in a democracy often means thinking that millions of our fellow citizens are making a big mistake, and saying so. That doesn’t have to mean considering them our moral inferiors. To the extent my fellow anti-Trump conservatives are adopting that mindset, they are making a depressing political season even more so.

 

[woolybug25]

Now that is a plausible successor to the GOP. Proudly patriotic, America-first nationalists v. the elitist, cosmopolitan global citizens-of-nowhere. This is already playing out across Europe. The problem with it is that nationalists need something to rally around-- race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Modern America is too racially and religiously diverse for that to effectively happen. Which is probably a good thing.

Isn't the nationalism itself the rallying call? Highly religious, highly patriotic and inclusive of all races (as long as they are lock step with the party's tyranny... I mean message)?

I imagine a party based in Christian values and government dependence. The former simply an image, as I doubt the inherent tyrannical basis of the party would lead to Christian values. More Sparrows than Vatican, if ya know what I mean.

I don't know if either party survives in that world. It's not like a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party could overcome the former. That's been pretty much every independent in our lifetimes.

 

[wizards8507]

Isn't the nationalism itself the rallying call? Highly religious, highly patriotic and inclusive of all races (as long as they are lock step with the party's tyranny... I mean message)?

I imagine a party based in Christian values and government dependence. The former simply an image, as I doubt the inherent tyrannical basis of the party would lead to Christian values. More Sparrows than Vatican, if ya know what I mean.

I don't know if either party survives in that world. It's not like a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party could overcome the former. That's been pretty much every independent in our lifetimes.

You're describing Trump. No, he's not religious, but he's somehow convinced the Evangelicals not to care. It's exactly the tyranny you describe only without any moral grounding.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Isn't the nationalism itself the rallying call? Highly religious, highly patriotic and inclusive of all races (as long as they are lock step with the party's tyranny... I mean message)?

I imagine a party based in Christian values and government dependence. The former simply an image, as I doubt the inherent tyrannical basis of the party would lead to Christian values. More Sparrows than Vatican, if ya know what I mean.

I don't know if either party survives in that world. It's not like a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party could overcome the former. That's been pretty much every independent in our lifetimes.

The "conservative" branches of American Christianity-- Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelical Protestantism-- probably share enough theological common-ground for that to be a possibility. But there's not nearly enough of them to make it work.

Much of our current political dysfunction is due to the ongoing erosion of the old Protestant moral consensus that existed here for so long. It may render our country ungovernable in the long-term, but one silver lining is that this social atomization makes it very hard for fascism to gain hold in America.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Isn't the nationalism itself the rallying call? Highly religious, highly patriotic and inclusive of all races (as long as they are lock step with the party's tyranny... I mean message)?

I imagine a party based in Christian values and government dependence. The former simply an image, as I doubt the inherent tyrannical basis of the party would lead to Christian values. More Sparrows than Vatican, if ya know what I mean.

I don't know if either party survives in that world. It's not like a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party could overcome the former. That's been pretty much every independent in our lifetimes.

This is Bush/Rove-style "compassionate conservatism." It was not unsuccessful, but nor was it a roaring success.

This also describes the orientation of many continental Christian democratic parties, such as the CDU/CSU in Germany, which are comfortable with a relatively larger welfare state.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "The Defeat of True Conservatism":

When Donald Trump knocked first Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio out of the Republican primary campaign, he defeated not only the candidates themselves but their common theory of what the G.O.P. should be — the idea that the party could essentially recreate George W. Bush’s political program with slightly different domestic policy ideas and recreate Bush’s political majority as well.

Now, after knocking Ted Cruz out of the race with a sweeping win in Indiana, Trump has beaten a second theory of where the G.O.P. needs to go from here: a theory you might call True Conservatism.

True Conservatism likes to portray itself as part of an unbroken tradition running back through Ronald Reagan to Barry Goldwater and the Founding Fathers. It has roots in that past, but it’s also a much more recent phenomenon, conceived in the same spirit as Bushism 2.0 but with the opposite intent.

If Bushism 2.0 looked at George W. Bush’s peaks — his post-Sept. 11 popularity, his 2004 majority — and saw a model worth recovering, True Conservatism looked at his administration’s collapse and argued that it proved that he had been far too liberal, and that all his “compassionate conservative” heresies had led the Republican Party into a ditch.

Thus True Conservatism’s determination to avoid both anything that savored of big government and anything that smacked of compromise. Where Bush had been softhearted, True Conservatism would be sternly Ayn Randian; where Bush had been free-spending, True Conservatism would be austere; where Bush had taken working-class Americans off the tax rolls, True Conservatism would put them back on — for their own good. And above all, where Bush had sometimes reached for the center, True Conservatism would stand on principle, fight hard, and win.

This philosophy found champions on talk radio, it shaped the Tea Party’s zeal, it influenced Paul Ryan’s budgets, it infused Mitt Romney’s “You built that” rhetoric. But it was only in the government shutdown of 2013 that it found its real standard-bearer: Ted Cruz.

And Cruz ended up running with it further than most people thought possible. His 2016 campaign strategy was simple: Wherever the party’s most ideological voters were, there he would be. If Obama was for it, he would be against it. Where conservatives were angry, he would channel their anger. Where they wanted a fighter; he would be a fighter. Wherever the party’s activists were gathered, on whatever issue — social or economic, immigration or the flat tax — he would be standing by their side. He would win Iowa, the South, his native Texas, the Mountain West. They wanted Reagan, or at least a fantasy version of Reagan? He would give it to them.

It didn’t work — but the truth is it almost did. In the days before and after the Wisconsin primary, with delegate accumulation going his way and the polling looking plausible once the Northeastern primaries were over, it seemed like Cruz could reasonably hope for a nomination on the second or third ballot.

So give the Texas senator some credit. He took evangelical votes from Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and Rick Santorum; he took libertarian votes from Rand Paul; he outlasted and outplayed Marco Rubio; he earned support from Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham, who once joked about his murder. Nobody worked harder; no campaign ran a tighter ship; no candidate was more disciplined.

But it turned out that Republican voters didn’t want True Conservatism any more than they wanted Bushism 2.0. Maybe they would have wanted it from a candidate with more charisma and charm and less dogged unlikability. But the entire Trump phenomenon suggests otherwise, and Trump as the presumptive nominee is basically a long proof against the True Conservative theory of the Republican Party.

Trump proved that movement conservative ideas and litmus tests don’t really have any purchase on millions of Republican voters. Again and again, Cruz and the other G.O.P. candidates stressed that Trump wasn’t really a conservative; they listed his heresies, cataloged his deviations, dug up his barely buried liberal past. No doubt this case resonated with many Republicans. But not with nearly enough of them to make Cruz the nominee.

Trump proved that many evangelical voters, supposedly the heart of a True Conservative coalition, are actually not really values voters or religious conservatives after all, and that the less frequently evangelicals go to church, the more likely they are to vote for a philandering sybarite instead of a pastor’s son. Cruz would probably be on his way to the Republican nomination if he had simply carried the Deep South. But unless voters were in church every Sunday, Trump’s identity politics had more appeal than Cruz’s theological-political correctness.

Trump proved that many of the party’s moderates and establishmentarians hate the thought of a True Conservative nominee even more than they fear handing the nomination to a proto-fascist grotesque with zero political experience and poor impulse control. That goes for the prominent politicians who refused to endorse Cruz, the prominent donors who sat on their hands once the field narrowed and all the moderate-Republican voters in blue states who turned out to be #NeverCruz first and #NeverTrump less so or even not at all.

Finally, Trump proved that many professional True Conservatives, many of the same people who flayed RINOs and demanded purity throughout the Obama era, were actually just playing a convenient part. From Fox News’ 10 p.m. hour to talk radio to the ranks of lesser pundits, a long list of people who should have been all-in for Cruz on ideological grounds either flirted with Trump, affected neutrality or threw down their cloaks for the Donald to stomp over to the nomination. Cruz thought he would have a movement behind him, but part of that movement was actually a racket, and Trumpistas were simply better marks.

Cruz will be back, no doubt. He’s young, he’s indefatigable, and he can claim — and will claim, on the 2020 hustings — that True Conservatism has as yet been left untried. But that will be a half-truth; it isn’t being tried this year because the Republican Party’s voters have rejected him and it, as they rejected another tour for Bushism when they declined to back Rubio and Jeb.

What remains, then, is Trumpism. Which is also, in its lurching, sometimes insightful, often wicked way, a theory of what kind of party the Republicans should become, and one that a plurality of Republicans have now actually voted to embrace.

Whatever reckoning awaits the G.O.P. and conservatism after 2016 will have to begin with that brute fact. Where the reckoning goes from there — well, with now is a time for pundit humility, so your guess is probably as good as mine.

 

[woolybug25]

The "conservative" branches of American Christianity-- Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelical Protestantism-- probably share enough theological common-ground for that to be a possibility. But there's not nearly enough of them to make it work.

Much of our current political dysfunction is due to the ongoing erosion of the old Protestant moral consensus that existed here for so long. It may render our country ungovernable in the long-term, but one silver lining is that this social atomization makes it very hard for fascism to gain hold in America.

I would argue that baptist have similar values. There's this:

The Landscape Survey also finds that nearly eight-in-ten African-Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56% among all U.S. adults. In fact, even a large majority (72%) of African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith say religion plays at least a somewhat important role in their lives; nearly half (45%) of unaffiliated African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives, roughly three times the percentage who says this among the religiously unaffiliated population overall (16%). Indeed, on this measure, unaffiliated African-Americans more closely resemble the overall population of Catholics (56% say religion is very important) and mainline Protestants (52%)

And this:

Compared with other groups, African-Americans express a high degree of comfort with religion’s role in politics. In fact, a summer 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum shows that African-Americans tend to closely resemble white evangelical Protestants on that score, with roughly six-in-ten among both groups saying that churches should express their views on social and political topics, and roughly half saying that there has been too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders.

A Religious Portrait of African-Americans | Pew Research Center

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So, Clintonism?

Where's the Jon Stewart "boom" gif?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would argue that baptist have similar values. There's this:

And this:

A Religious Portrait of African-Americans | Pew Research Center

Baptists are typically considered evangelicals, no?

And what does that mean, that religion is "very important"? Of Americans who self-identify as Catholic, only 24% attend weekly mass. And of those, a much smaller minority confess at least once a year. Those are the people who actually believe what the Church teaches, and there's not many of them.

Evangelicals are similar. There's a massive gulf between identifying as "Christian" and actually practicing it. As Trump's "evangelical" support shows, those who identify and don't practice are much more secular and liberal in their values than Christian.

 

[woolybug25]

You're describing Trump. No, he's not religious, but he's somehow convinced the Evangelicals not to care. It's exactly the tyranny you describe only without any moral grounding.

It's not what I see Trump doing persay, but him laying the groundwork. He will use his nationalistic message for his personal gain and create a base of people that will follow this message. The same social conservatives that followed him into the nomination, will be the same followers of this new platform. The reality is that the same poor, uneducated Christian white dude with a confederate flag on his pickup... Is the same guy that can be government dependent (welfare statistics certainly suggest this) and extremely patriotic in nature. To you and I, he may seem polar opposite to the black guy from South Chicago with a BLM poster. But that BLM fella can very well be (statistically mind) very religious and has negative views of gays. Both of these guys can rally behind a Nationalist message based in God and Patriotism. Both will be promised the "American Dream" via government aid. While they couldn't be more different today, this is a platform that would be attractive to both.

Pretty scary the more I mentally peel the onion...

 

[wizards8507]

Baptists are typically considered evangelicals, no?

And what does that mean, that religion is "very important"? Of Americans who self-identify as Catholic, only 24% attend weekly mass. And of those, a much smaller minority confess at least once a year. Those are the people who actually believe what the Church teaches.

Evangelicals are similar. There's a massive gulf between identifying as "Christian" and actually practicing it. As Trump's "evangelical" support shows, those who identify and don't practice are much more secular and liberal in their values than Christian.

Maybe I don't understand evangelicals. Doesn't the word "evangelical" connote action, as in you're not an evangelical Christian if you're not out evangelizing people? Isn't it therefore a contradiction in terms to be a non-practicing evangelical Christian? It sounds like what you're saying is that "evangelical Christian" is based on self-identification of a subset of denominations that really has no correlation to actual practicing people of faith. If that's the case, that's honestly a fundamental shift in how I view the country. Having never lived in the evangelical south or Midwest, maybe the country is simply much less religious than I realized.

 

[woolybug25]

Baptists are typically considered evangelicals, no?

And what does that mean, that religion is "very important"? Of Americans who self-identify as Catholic, only 24% attend weekly mass. And of those, a much smaller minority confess at least once a year. Those are the people who actually believe what the Church teaches.

Evangelicals are similar. There's a massive gulf between identifying as "Christian" and actually practicing it. As Trump's "evangelical" support shows, those who identify and don't practice are much more secular and liberal in their values than Christian.

Which is why I added the second quote. All of the groups, Catholics and Baptists alike, prefer more Christian values in politics.

Regardless of Catholics in particular, the evangelical sect of the population certainly holds religion over issues like taxation and economic policy, no?

 

[woolybug25]

Maybe I don't understand evangelicals. Doesn't the word "evangelical" connote action, as in you're not an evangelical Christian if you're not out evangelizing people? Isn't it therefore a contradiction in terms to be a non-practicing evangelical Christian? It sounds like what you're saying is that "evangelical Christian" is based on self-identification of a subset of denominations that really has no correlation to actual practicing people of faith. If that's the case, that's honestly a fundamental shift in how I view the country. Having never lived in the evangelical south or Midwest, maybe the country is simply much less religious than I realized.

This was my view of evangelicals as well.

 

[wizards8507]

It's not what I see Trump doing persay, but him laying the groundwork. He will use his nationalistic message for his personal gain and create a base of people that will follow this message. The same social conservatives that followed him into the nomination, will be the same followers of this new platform. The reality is that the same poor, uneducated Christian white dude with a confederate flag on his pickup... Is the same guy that can be government dependent (welfare statistics certainly suggest this) and extremely patriotic in nature. To you and I, he may seem polar opposite to the black guy from South Chicago with a BLM poster. But that BLM fella can very well be (statistically mind) very religious and has negative views of gays. Both of these guys can rally behind a Nationalist message based in God and Patriotism. Both will be promised the "American Dream" via government aid. While they couldn't be more different today, this is a platform that would be attractive to both.

Pretty scary the more I mentally peel the onion...

Welcome to where my brain has been for the last nine months. I have no idea what I'm supposed to do in a world where the Republican party looks like THAT. The GOP has never been a perfect ideological fit for me but man oh man will I be without a home.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It sounds like what you're saying is that "evangelical Christian" is based on self-identification of a subset of denominations that really has no correlation to actual practicing people of faith.

Yes. In my experience, it's most often used as a catch-all term for the more conservative Protestant denominations. And just as Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino self-identifies as Catholic, lots of similarly irreligious southerners and midwesterners identify as "evangelical".

If that's the case, that's honestly a fundamental shift in how I few the country. Having never lived in the evangelical south or Midwest, maybe the country is simply much less religious than I realized.

Bet on it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Welcome to where my brain has been for the last nine months. I have no idea what I'm supposed to do in a world where the Republican party looks like THAT. The GOP has never been a perfect ideological fit for me but man oh man will I be without a home.

Not be a dick, but it took this for you to feel like that? I get that you are talking about the results of the primary election, but the R party has been so disjointed and unable to rally around any cohesive platforms (except stop Obama) that they have abandoned people who simply won't follow the party line, every time.

 

[wizards8507]

Not be a dick, but it took this for you to feel like that? I get that you are talking about the results of the primary election, but the R party has been so disjointed and unable to rally around any cohesive platforms (except stop Obama) that they have abandoned people who simply won't follow the party line, every time.

Until now, I've been voting for "pretty bad" instead of "remarkably terrible." If the GOP goes to Trumpism, it'll be a matter of "remarkably terrible" versus "remarkably terrible."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's not what I see Trump doing persay, but him laying the groundwork. He will use his nationalistic message for his personal gain and create a base of people that will follow this message. The same social conservatives that followed him into the nomination, will be the same followers of this new platform. The reality is that the same poor, uneducated Christian white dude with a confederate flag on his pickup... Is the same guy that can be government dependent (welfare statistics certainly suggest this) and extremely patriotic in nature. To you and I, he may seem polar opposite to the black guy from South Chicago with a BLM poster. But that BLM fella can very well be (statistically mind) very religious and has negative views of gays. Both of these guys can rally behind a Nationalist message based in God and Patriotism. Both will be promised the "American Dream" via government aid. While they couldn't be more different today, this is a platform that would be attractive to both.

Pretty scary the more I mentally peel the onion...

As you've alluded to, nationalist movements are often explicitly racist (Know Nothings, Black Panthers, etc.) They've been a political force in the past, when America was overwhelmingly white and Protestant. But that isn't the case anymore. I get your point about the similarities between your two hypothetical voters, but the identity-politics at the heart of fascism prevents them from ever being part of the same party. We're just too diverse now for such a movement to gain enough popular support in America.

Though it does make me question the wisdom of Progressives constantly playing minority identity politics. Risks provoking a very dangerous reaction from the right.

Which is why I added the second quote. All of the groups, Catholics and Baptists alike, prefer more Christian values in politics.

Regardless of Catholics in particular, the evangelical sect of the population certainly holds religion over issues like taxation and economic policy, no?

That was the conventional wisdom, yes. But as wizards mentioned above, I think Trump's campaign is showing that modern America is far less Christian than many assumed.

 

[woolybug25]

Not be a dick, but it took this for you to feel like that? I get that you are talking about the results of the primary election, but the R party has been so disjointed and unable to rally around any cohesive platforms (except stop Obama) that they have abandoned people who simply won't follow the party line, every time.

To be fair, Wiz has openly talked about the issues with the party on many occasions pre Trump. At that point, a lot of what we are talking about now wasn't something anyone could have envisioned. For instance, if I would have asked you four years ago whether the party could be taken over by Trump (who was a Democrat at the time), would you have foreseen this? What Trump has done, is turn that disfunction and molded it into power. Which is what has brought this longtime disfunction of the party into the discussion of the party morphing into a nationalistic brand.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Bet on it.

Trump's only won 38% of GOP primary voters, which is unusually low (winner usually has 50%+). He has done worse among observant Christians. There are many people who describe themselves as Christian in polls but are not observant; observance levels are what count in determining votes. Many observant GOP-voting Christians have obviously voted for Trump, but it is not as if most (either a plurality or majority) have.

 

[wizards8507]

Trump's only won 38% of GOP primary voters, which is unusually low (winner usually has 50%+). He has done worse among observant Christians. There are many people who describe themselves as Christian in polls but are not observant; observance levels are what count in determining votes. Many observant GOP-voting Christians have obviously voted for Trump, but it is not as if most (either a plurality or majority) have.

I think Whiskey's point is about the gap between those observant Christians and those who identify as such. I agree that people who vote on their faith probably supported Cruz over Trump, but the media (and apparently the Cruz campaign) overestimated the portion of self-identified Christians that actually live and vote according to their faith. How many times did we hear how Cruz underperformed among southern and midwestern evangelicals? He should have won that bloc, but it turns out that at least a plurality of self-identified evangelicals proved to be Christians-in-name-only.

 

[woolybug25]

As you've alluded to, nationalist movements are often explicitly racist (Know Nothings, Black Panthers, etc.) They've been a political force in the past, when America was overwhelmingly white and Protestant. But that isn't the case anymore. I get your point about the similarities between your two hypothetical voters, but the identity-politics at the heart of fascism prevents them from ever being part of the same party. We're just too diverse now for such a movement to gain enough popular support in America.

Though it does make me question the wisdom of Progressives constantly playing minority identity politics. Risks provoking a very dangerous reaction from the right.



That was the conventional wisdom, yes. But as wizards mentioned above, I think Trump's campaign is showing that modern America is far less Christian than many assumed.

I guess I would use the Middle East as an example here. They are comprised of nationalized countries based in Islam. None of these countries based their message specifically in race, but rather religion. Every major dispute splitting factions of population in that region has been based in religious differences (Sunni vs shiite for instance). While they do not have the racial makeup of the US, there certainly are many races throughout the Muslim world. None of which, seems to matter when it comes to Shariah Law and its place in Islamic Politics.

 

[dales5050]

In which election would you say that 'family values' Christians cost the Republicans a victory? Again, see the chart above. The economy is the main driver of Presidential election results.

The Republican party has only won a majority of the popular vote in a Presidential election once since 1988. As I recall, 'family values' issues played a role in that victory (2004).

Bear in mind too that the clustering of Democrats (three of the five most populous states are blue, and only one red) gives them a built-in advantage in Presidential elections and the spread of Republicans gives them a built-in advantage in the House elections.

It's not as if the GOP has squandered this advantage. Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate and in most state legislatures, which are the places where abortion policy and many other 'social issues' are dealt with, at least in part.

The Republican Party runs for more than just the POTUS. If these folks are going to leave the Party...they should leave for all seats not just POTUS.

Most of the damage from Crazy Christians is done at the State level but there are plenty of buffoons in Congress as well.

 

[Ndaccountant]

To be fair, Wiz has openly talked about the issues with the party on many occasions pre Trump. At that point, a lot of what we are talking about now wasn't something anyone could have envisioned. For instance, if I would have asked you four years ago whether the party could be taken over by Trump (who was a Democrat at the time), would you have foreseen this? What Trump has done, is turn that disfunction and molded it into power. Which is what has brought this longtime disfunction of the party into the discussion of the party morphing into a nationalistic brand.

I would have never believed the "who", but I would have definitely believed the "why". I think that is what is being completely ignored by the establishment of both parties. Candidates like Sanders and Trump can succeed because a large portion of the population is legitimately scared of what the future holds. They look at people like Clinton, Cruz, etc as part of the problem, whether that is true or not. Add to that the ever growing dissatisfaction of politicians in general, and you are ripe for the picking.

So personally, I don't see this as a new brand of nationalism. I see it as more of a collection of people that are so concerned for their economic future, that they are willing to clasp onto any candidate that "wasn't part of the group that got us here". This ever growing sect of the population has finally signaled enough and there wasn't one other person willing to come out with fresh ideas that would give these people hope. It was more of the same crap that has been spewed for the last 8 years. It was inevitable before someone identified it and exploited it. Gotta hand it to Trump as this has been widely successful for him, whether he wins or not. In terms of a "deal", he won.