I can't speak for all of humanity, and won't pretend to (myself, not being a liberal and all), but I don't think that Trump has it "in the bag" by any means, whatsoever. First, his sheer unpredictability alone would give pause to any reasonable prognosticator. At first glance, HRC seems like the more safe and stable product - she's not only known to run one of the safest / most populists campaigners known to man, but who neither has any qualms nor is ever held accountable for any number of sizable shifts in her positions, even in oppositional directions, and which are so vaporous as to change from one crowd, moment or talking point to the next. What's going to happen when she starts to be held accountable for it, and faces those questions (and she will, unless you think Trump won't force them out into the light). And then, she is so despised by the GOP and GOP/e, alike, and is easily the most widely and viscerally hated public figures in the eyes of that group in the last 25 years, if not all-time. Democrats seem either incapable or unwilling to properly and fully account for how widely loathed she really is amongst the GOP - and that could easily bite her in the ass. And she is married to what that same group sees as perhaps being the second or third most hated political figure over the same time. And she is not only just so scandal-ridden, but has gotten a pass on most of those. Again, if you think that the Trump campaign lets those go, as Bernie has largely done, you're crazy. How much of it sticks? What effect does it have? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else - and again, it's potentially too unpredictably volatile to even begin to guess. It wouldn't surprise me to see her win the election, to drop out after an indictment - or to keep running even after being indicted - and still win. That's how formidable the media is for her, sizably resources is the machine pushing her, and strong the perception that she simply "deserves" to be POTUS may prove to be. And, this election cycle seems to have a particularly unpredictable sort of feel to it, on both sides, each with bases that are no longer and merely upset about the current state of affairs, but who finally seem sufficiently motivated to do something about it. How does that pan out? Do more Sanders supporters go to HRC, than sit at home? Do some Sanders supporters actually go to Trump - and if so, how many? The same can be said for the NEVERTRUMP folks, too. How many of them are there, at all (caution to anyone who attempts to estimate this group's size - site your source, and check it's published date), 10%? 90%? And how well does Trump bring conservatives aboard? Because you know, that's a weird dynamic in and of itself. He's "beaten" everything that conservatives have thrown at him, and it's easy to say that he should run roughshod over them, but they are still a sizable portion of his base, and he needs them. So, what does he have to do in order to get them, and what promises will he make to garner it - and then will he go too far, and actually alienate his now-ardent supporters in making any such compromise? And what if a third party runs? What if HRC wakes up and realizes that she has to name Bernie as her VEEP? What if Trump names Ryan as his? Or Cruz? I believe that there are more Americans who will agree with Trump, than Hillary. I believe that more Americans will see Trump as being the quintessential outsider that they seem to desperately want (and from every conceivable direction), and Hillary as the ultimate and atypical insider. I think that for each undecided person who finds what Trump says / believes as being repugnant, that 10 more undecided voters will now begin to see HRC as being entirely dishonest and untrustworthy, merely mouthing whatever she has to say so as to get elected, and will reject her. I think that Trump is best suited to not only tap into this unusually large (and growing, still) anger, disappointment and resentment that has motivated a majority of Americans, but with a perfect pitch and an on point manner of delivery. Conversely, HRC is simply the wrong candidate, with the most inopportune timing, delivering the worst message to the wrong group, and who have become emboldened to stand against her. But that doesn't mean that she will lose, or that Trump has it "in the bag". Footnote: for the record, I never waivered in my prediction that President Obama would win re-election in 2012.
Absolutely correct. Perhaps they would be best-served by looking inward, when assigning blame, and not outward, at everyone else. With barely getting Bush in, losing with McCain and Romney, and then finally failing to even win their own primary - even against such an easy target as Trump tends to be - the problem for conservatism is no longer Trump, the voters, HRC, the Democrats or anything else, but the political theory of conservatism, itself. Conservatives can act righteously indignant and complain about Trump all they want (this only further proves how delusionally out-of-touch they've become, as if any more proof was needed, now, even at this late hour) but the same wall which a painful reality was written upon - and which they complwtely and unapologetically chose to ignore - finally fell right on their heads, this year. What has happened isn't Trump's fault, but their own. And now, they seem utterly incapable of following through in doing the very thing which they've so long waved a finger and preached to others - accepting responsibility.
Do you think Conservatives have clung to the Goldwater/Reagan model of conservatism too long? Or have they strayed from it?
Excellent question. I'm no expert on anything, much less conservativism, but I think that the ascent of the Christian Coalition lead to the descent of conservatism, in general. I'm not sure that Goldwater / Reagan wanted the government involved in much of anything, particularly decisions involving almost wholly personal matters, such as including who prays and where, who gets an abortion or not, etc. Or, another way to look at it is to view their POTUS candidates / outcomes, since they rose to prominence in 1994. 1996 - Dole - Lost 2000 - W - Won 2004 - W - Won 2008 - McCain - Lost 2012 - Romney - Lost So, they are 2-3 since then. And they couldn't even secure their own nomination this primary season. That's about as dead as it gets, IMO. You can argue that Trump has usurped the Party.....or that he is only correcting the Christian Coalition's usurpation in 94, and which some would argue, was itself a bastardization of conservatism.
I do not think any meaningful number of conservatives other than ultra-conservatives have clung to any semblance of a Goldwater model.
There are quite a few people who would take exception with your categorization of McCain and Romney as conservative, and point out the only Goldwater/Reagan conservative to mount a concerted campaign over the past 16 years just finished 2nd out of 17 in most recent melee.
You also have to look beyond just the Presidential election. Conservative candidates have done much better in Senate and Congressional races, and much better than that at the state level. I also think you are confusing Republican with conservative; one is a party, the other is an ideology that finds its home, such that it is, within the party.
I'll defer to you, and won't argue the point. But I will sincerely ask this: If conservatives couldn't prevent McCain, Romney or Trump, how sizably powerful are they within the GOP? And as a follow-up, who is it that is supporting / orchestrating these non-conservative national candidates? Is there some sizably large group of unnamed moderates within the GOP? Is it the GOP/e? Again, sincere question - who's driving the GOP train?
Theocratic Big Government Conservatives have done well in the South. I'm not sure they've done that well anywhere else.
I imagine its an ebb and flow. There was enough of a swing to allow them to overcome Democrat gerrymandering when they came into power. If they suck it can swing right back.
I think there is a sizable group of moderates that have had a lot of power. I may have a slanted view because of this, but I have seen it play out over and over in my own, solidly red state. There is an entrenched group of moderate Republicans, the patriarch of whom is now Mitch McConnell, who have ben solidly entrenched in party leadership since it drifted from the Dems with the rest of the South. They have been assaulted from the right since about '08 by Tea Party candidates like Rand Paul and now, Gov. Matt Bevin. McConnell et al hate them, Paul et al think McConnell and cronies are sell outs. So nobody is driving the train. There is a fight for control of the party between politically motivated incumbents who think compromise with progressivism is the key to the future and ideologues who think the shift left is against the will of the people and against the country's best interestt. I'll vote for Trump.
It's more than ebb and flow. Look at an electoral map by county in any election since 2000, and you'll see small areas of urban population centers in blue dwarfed by wide swatches of red that cover the vast majority of the country. California is half red. Florida is 85% red. There's a constant, deliberate, dirty but important struggle to see whether the coasts can dominate the heartland or the other way around, and carving up map lines is one weapon in that war.
Two terrifically flawed candidates makes voting for either an enormous challenge. Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would in securing the GOP nomination, but Sanders is an unfortunate victim of a rigged game. My hope was for Trump/Sanders to blow up both parties so we might see something better rise from the ashes. I think Trump has made the GOP phoenixing likely, and perhaps Sanders has set the Dems on a similar path. We can certainly hope he's done enough. So for me Trump's primary role has been played. The general is an American tragedy.
It's a tool that has been used at least since before the Civil War. I don't have a suggestion for how to depoliticize it, but it has led to some unjustifiable district shapes and boundaries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...sional_Districts,_party_colors_2009_07_23.svg
Sanders won't blow it up. He's still trying to send a message, but it is one of democratic socialism, so most here besides myself aren't going to be applauding that. He's trying to drag the party to the left after Bill Clinton moved it to the middle.
An unpardonable one. And we are to blame for letting the Dems and GOP bring it to this boil on the ass of self interest.
