Writing at RealClearPolitics Jeffrey Anderson identifies why Donald Trump has become the Republican presidential nominee:
In each of these four ways, center-right elites enabled Trump’s win. If they don’t like the result, they should look in the mirror. Republican representatives failed to listen to voters. Republican National Committee members adopted a direct-democracy-based nomination system inspired by the left wing of the Democratic Party and then failed to scrap it across decades of mostly mediocre nominees. Republican presidential candidates failed to focus on big-picture issues. And Republican pundits and influence-peddlers didn’t back the chief challenger when he was potentially poised to take the lead.
As all of this suggests, the problems in our politics lie more with the elites than with the citizenry. Among everyday Americans, there is a refreshingly strong sentiment—fueled by eight years of Obama and the statist disaster that is Obamacare—in favor of our founding principles. This sentiment was most evident in the rise of the Tea Party. But conservative-leaning elites have generally failed to channel these salutary sentiments toward productive ends.
and why he may be elected president. As me old mither used to say, stick with the one what brung you.
I am not familiar with the writer, but the article is disjointed. Point number 2 juxtaposed against point number 1 is bizarre. If number 2 had been fixed, the elites could have disregarded number 1, and this would have eliminated Trump. Number 2 would have eliminated the need for number 3, and number 4 would not have been an issue either.
Number 2 is the only relevant point. The other points would require a Trump-like candidate, and that is the problem. Sen. Cruz is not Trump-lite. He cannot defend having made a sh*t-ton of money and having no intention of apologizing. For any elite approved candidate, the Democrats would be trying to find the money he was hiding. For Trump, they are trying to find the money he did not make.
The elites would rather lose with a Left approved candidate than win with with one they have disapproved. It is the Left they are trying to appease not their base.
Our founding principles require that we elect a womanizing, immoral, crooked, self-centered braggart who mostly proposes the same stuff every other Republican does, big tax cuts for the wealthy, while opposing immigration (except for when he used them of course). Was there another edition of the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers that I missed?
Steve
Vote for George Washington!!!
(I may have convinced a group of retirees that hang out and gossip in the patio furniture section at Ace Hardware to vote George and tell their friends. If I’ve just logged into a crucial network of key voters, we may wake up surprised some Wednesday in November)
@steve
We know. Everybody the Left disagrees with is a racist, homophobe, misogynist, sexist, etc., and we are poopie-heads and have girl/boy germs. Blah, blah, blah.
At least Hillary Clinton is trying something new. Mike Pence – the scariest man in the entire world except for Donald Trump who is the scariest man in the entire world who would not be the scariest man in the entire world if he were not the Republican nominee.
For the party that claims to be so smart, I would think one of you all could come up with something better than a third grader, but I guess not.
I think you’re missing the point, steve. The point is that Republican party elected officials seem to have forgotten the people that voted for them. On issue after issue elected Republicans either have actively opposed the policies supported by the Republican base or declined to fight for them.
One of the issues that Trump has latched on to is immigration. There is something approaching a consensus on immigration. Both Pew and Gallup have found that a majority of Democrats think that immigration is either just about right or should be reduced while a solid majority of Republicans and indepedents think it should be reduced.
The “comprehensive immigration” bill would have increased immigration. That’s just sticking a thumb into the eye of your constituents.
TB-I rarely use the words racist, homophobe, misogynistic or sexist. I certainly won’t use them in Trump’s case since i doubt he has any real convictions about this kind of stuff. My best guess is that he is such a narcissist he doesn’t care about most of that. Heck, he lived in New York and most rich people who live there don’t want to kill gays. That is just the rich ones from the South. Besides, he and Melania need people to arrange flowers for them and decorate the house. So, if you want t argue with yourself, go ahead. I will stand by what he said. The guy is immoral, a womanizer (who has always bragged about it), a crook and a braggart. Argue those points.
Dave-I get it. It just irritates me that someone could claim with a straight face (computer?) that voting for Trump is a return to ur founding principles. It is a vote for a celebrity candidate who has found a couple of issues to push. For which he offers no real plans, just grievance sharing. Who has a real chance of winning because his opposition is the second worst candidate to run in recent times.
Steve
@steve
I usually try not to paint with a broad brush. I take into account that you are not a raving lunatic and that the Democrats are not all progressives or Leftists, but enough is enough.
I do not really care about Donald Trump. He is a big boy, and he can fight for himself. If he were half of what he was accused of being, people would be coming out of the woodwork against him. I care about the ordinary unsophisticated people who support Trump because he supports them.
(When Trump supporters begin talking about poor people and bootstraps, I will and have quickly switch to supporting the poor people, and if they disparage the poor and lower income urban black people, I will and have switch. Nobody gets an unlimited pass.)
Your side has gone over-the-top with the terms racist and racism, and the concepts have become mostly meaningless. When the Left calls somebody racist, it will be discounted, but the actual racists will be able to operate more freely. I do not count this as a victory, and the Left should be horrified by what they have accomplished. Somehow, I doubt they will accept responsibility for their actions.
OT- Claims keep being made that Obamacare has increased premium costs, but we see anecdotal evidence being offered to support those claims. When people look at data on the national level, it looks like, to date, the ACA has slowed spending. Just one study, so wouldn’t hang my hat on this, but much more useful than some angry guy claiming costs went up, the usual level of evidence.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/07/21/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/
Steve, it depends on what you’re talking about. If you look at only the individual market (about 16 million people) and only look at the average, then yes, premiums are lower. It seems to me that’s quite likely the result of subsidies. Since the cost of health care has not decreased, there are very few ways that insurance premiums can drop.
Andy- Sure, but the individual market was the target for the ACA. Most larger companies self-insure, so if they are up not sure how you can blame Obamacare. Anyway, while this is not comprehensive I thought it would nice to look at something other than claims like “everyone I know had their premiums increase”.
Steve