Is Trumpism the new GOP mainstream?

[*bfine32*]

Why do folks have to label everything? The link coins Trumpisim; yet doesn't discuss what it is. All he does is talk about what it is not.

If Trumpisim is Pro-military, pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, pro deregulation, pro- private market. Then I'm that and it hasn't changed in quite some time. If it is something else explain it to me.

As to the base question: Trump will not change the ideals of conservatives or their party.

[Dill]

(10-28-2017, 03:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The most popular candidates were non establishment.  

Trump, Sanders and Cruz were by far the most preferred candidates.  

Had Kaisich did the right thing and gotten out we would have President Cruz right now.

Who won the popular vote?

[Dill]

(10-26-2017, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Rich Lowry (editor at The National Review) wrote an opinion piece on Politico. In this piece, he talks about how the events with Sen. Flake point to a shift in the GOP to Trumpism being the mainstream, now. Rich is notoriously anti-Trump, but he is conservative. This is the man with whom Paul Ryan reminisced about shared dreams of slashing Medicaid. Rich's position is clear on this, but I'm curious what some of the GOP stalwarts and the more conservative minded on the board think about this rise of Trumpism to be what the GOP stands for. We can talk about the image of the man if you'd like, but more importantly I'm interested in the abandonment of conservative GOP principles held onto for so long. We'd seen a slide away from some of the more conservative elements for a while, and it is now culminating in what we see today. I am genuinely curious about the conservative view of this shift.

I agree there is a shift. That is why formerly far right Republicans are now called "the establishment"--any one who sees the long term consequences of incompetence or recognizes that DemocRATs get to vote too.

Trumpism can dominate the Republican party without being "mainstream."  It has forced many self-identified conservatives to choose between conservative ideals and continued access to power (i.e. tax-cutting power). That leaves them ethically compromised, but doesn't make them converts to Trumpism. But it is too soon to say the GOP has capitulated, especially as Trump's popularity continues to drop.

[Benton]

(10-28-2017, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do folks have to label everything? The link coins Trumpisim; yet doesn't discuss what it is. All he does is talk about what it is not.

If Trumpisim is Pro-military, pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, pro deregulation, pro- private market. Then I'm that and it hasn't changed in quite some time. If it is something else explain it to me.

As to the base question: Trump will not change the ideals of conservatives or their party.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumpism-works-better-without-trump/

It's a fairly decent read comparing Trump and Gov. Bevin, does a decent job of outlining Trumpism. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2017, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: I agree there is a shift. That is why formerly far right Republicans are now called "the establishment"--any one who sees the long term consequences of incompetence or recognizes that DemocRATs get to vote too.

Trumpism can dominate the Republican party without being "mainstream."  It has forced many self-identified conservatives to choose between conservative ideals and continued access to power (i.e. tax-cutting power). That leaves them ethically compromised, but doesn't make them converts to Trumpism. But it is too soon to say the GOP has capitulated, especially as Trump's popularity continues to drop.

Is Trump's popularity dropping among Republicans, though? We see the overall poll numbers, but my understanding is that he still has the vast majority of GOP voters behind him.

I do get what you're saying, though. Gillespie, running for governor here in Virginia, is about as establishment as you can get. I know he doesn't buy into Trumpism, but I'll be damned if he isn't running his campaign like it. It's funny, though, because he'll put his name on it, but he won't personally engage in the dog whistles and everything like the lower part of the ticket will.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 10:03 AM)Dill Wrote: Who won the popular vote?

Popular vote is irrelevant for various reasons. Plus Trump was proven right about illegal voting

Do You honestly think Hillary was the most popular candidate out of Trump, sanders, Cruz and her?

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2017, 11:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Popular vote is irrelevant for various reasons. Plus Trump was proven right about illegal voting

Source?

[GMDino]

(10-30-2017, 11:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Source?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 11:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Source?

Numerous reports the past six months or so.

Edit: here is one http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

[GMDino]

(10-30-2017, 12:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Numerous reports the past six months or so.

Edit: here is one http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

I get the feeling that Matt might want to see an actual study and methodology not a report on a study where the people behind it say "it's all very technical" and don't provide anything except their "findings".

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: I get the feeling that Matt might want to see an actual study and methodology not a report on a study where the people behind it say "it's all very technical" and don't provide anything except their "findings".

Lol.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2017, 12:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol.

Should I have posted a meme/gif?  

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2017, 12:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Numerous reports the past six months or so.

Edit: here is one http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

If you are referring to that, then I have to disappoint you. The methodology used in the ODU findings, which this "independent think tank" used for their evidence was flawed. Extrapolating the numbers that they did from the data was just bad statistical analysis. On top of that, this is information about prior elections. His claim was that is happened during his election. Using that information is an attempt to move the goal posts, even if it wasn't deeply flawed.

(10-30-2017, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: I get the feeling that Matt might want to see an actual study and methodology not a report on a study where the people behind it say "it's all very technical" and don't provide anything except their "findings".

I already knew about that one, at least. It made the rounds with political stat nerds a while back, and was widely disputed based upon flawed methodology to reach some of the conclusions. They neglected to account for response errors, and to adjust the margins based upon the small size of the sample of the population, especially when looking at non-citizen respondents. When you take those issues with methodology into account and combine it with actual data on non-citizen voting, you can tell that the calculation they came up with was laughable, to say the least.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are referring to that, then I have to disappoint you. The methodology used in the ODU findings, which this "independent think tank" used for their evidence was flawed. Extrapolating the numbers that they did from the data was just bad statistical analysis. On top of that, this is information about prior elections. His claim was that is happened during his election. Using that information is an attempt to move the goal posts, even if it wasn't deeply flawed.


I already knew about that one, at least. It made the rounds with political stat nerds a while back, and was widely disputed based upon flawed methodology to reach some of the conclusions. They neglected to account for response errors, and to adjust the margins based upon the small size of the sample of the population, especially when looking at non-citizen respondents. When you take those issues with methodology into account and combine it with actual data on non-citizen voting, you can tell that the calculation they came up with was laughable, to say the least.

I guess the countless reporting of illegals voting and registered to vote I. Numerous states is flawed as well lol

You guys make me laugh with your constant need to insist certain subjects or topics are untouchable.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2017, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I guess the countless reporting of illegals voting and registered to vote I. Numerous states is flawed as well lol

You guys make me laugh with your constant need to insist certain subjects or topics are untouchable.

I am unfamiliar with this reporting. The numbers I have seen regarding actual non-citizen voting numbers has been minimal and insignificant. Even more so if looking at undocumented immigrants, alone.

I'm not saying anything is untouchable. I'm just asking for actual evidence pointing to these things. If you make a claim, it should be supportable by facts and evidence. That's all I ask for.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2017, 01:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am unfamiliar with this reporting. The numbers I have seen regarding actual non-citizen voting numbers has been minimal and insignificant. Even more so if looking at undocumented immigrants, alone.

I'm not saying anything is untouchable. I'm just asking for actual evidence pointing to these things. If you make a claim, it should be supportable by facts and evidence. That's all I ask for.

Matt you must be new to this.  See the new dynamic is:

1) Make a claim
2) Claim there is vast support/proof for said claim when it is questioned.
3) Tell the person who questioned you that it is up to THEM to find the proof since "it is out there" and "easy to find".
4) Change topics.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 01:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am unfamiliar with this reporting. The numbers I have seen regarding actual non-citizen voting numbers has been minimal and insignificant. Even more so if looking at undocumented immigrants, alone.

I'm not saying anything is untouchable. I'm just asking for actual evidence pointing to these things. If you make a claim, it should be supportable by facts and evidence. That's all I ask for.

And I have told you there have been numerous state reports about illegal voter registration and actual voting. I don’t have time to run down months of articles, especially when we all already know your response will be to just ignore them anyway because you do not like them.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2017, 02:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And I have told you there have been numerous state reports about illegal voter registration and actual voting. I don’t have time to run down months of articles, especially when we all already know your response will be to just ignore them anyway because you do not like them.

I accept primary sources, like states reporting numbers. The ones I am aware of have been small in number and have not shown any significant impact on the election one way or the other and do not prove Trump correct in any way. However, the reporting on them by right-wing media has been an attempt to say Trump is right, when the reality is much different.

But, if you have primary source information that would change my understanding of the situation, I am more than happy to take a look at it. I don't dismiss factual evidence, I just dismiss partisan opinions that draw erroneous conclusions based on flawed methodology. I can't help it if you rely on the latter whenever we have a discussion.

[Dill]

(10-30-2017, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I guess the countless reporting of illegals voting and registered to vote I. Numerous states is flawed as well lol

You guys make me laugh with your constant need to insist certain subjects or topics are untouchable.

Actually, there is no "countless reporting of illegals voting and registered to votes."

Some people claim there is illegal voting. The claims circulate. When they are investigated, the story ends.

"Numerous states" have investigated voter fraud and found little to speak of--a few scattered cases of people who didn't know they were allowed to vote or thought they could vote in two states or wanted to make sure Trump won.

Saying that there is no credible proof of a voter fraud problem is not saying a topic is untouchable. 

Continuing to claim proof without showing proof and ignoring proof to the country is itself a way of insisting certain subject or topics are untouchable.