The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[SeattleUte]

Well, whether Trump means it or not, it's pretty universal through history that rising dictators signal well ahead what they plan to do. And many times most people just assume they aren't being serious until they get there and actually do it. Trump tells me what he stands for and I HATE IT. So I won't vote that piece of shit.

I'm not worried about a dictatorship in America. Worry about something realistic.

[I.J. Reilly]

So I know I said I had entered the depression phase last night, but this morning I find myself grasping for any shred of hope that Trump can be stopped. I just read that a high majority of the early states are open primaries and the states Trump loses are closed. This backs up the argument that he is not convincing Republicans to follow him, but leading a hostile takeover of the party. I checked and of the 15 Republican primaries so far, only 4 have been closed. Trump lost 3 of them. Granted, they were all close, but even with the not-Trump vote split, he isn't running away with the vote like he is in a lot of the open primaries. Has anyone seen any good exit poll data on this phenomenon? Are there a lot of first time Republicans and/or non-Republicans supporting Trump in the open primaries?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

Of the upcoming primaries through March 15, 13 out of 19 are closed. Unfortunately, one of the largest winner-take-all prizes (Ohio) is partially open. I will hold out hope until March 15. If the not-Trump candidates can deny Trump Florida and Ohio, there is a chance of checking his momentum and keeping him from a majority of delegates. Obviously if Trump takes those states it's over.

When all is said and done and the Donald loses to HRC in the general, this just might end up being what the Republican Party ends up settling on as the problem and closing the primaries will be the solution.

Of course, this will demonstrate a lack of introspection and an inability to course correct, but that would be par for the course.

[wally]

What if an article outlined authoritarianism generally and then showed and explained a bunch of data about how many people who are not authoritarian may have latent authoritarian tendencies upon which they act when certain threats are presented? Would that still seem like a doTerra product?

Look, in my initial comment I agreed that the Authoritarian hypothesis had merit, and I agreed that it explained a good part of the Trump phenomenon, I just didn't think that it captured the complexity of the support he is receiving, but maybe we all do have a latent authoritarian gene or something.

Sometimes Donut, I have no idea what you are arguing for or against.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh brother. Don't believe everything you read.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Look, in my initial comment I agreed that the Authoritarian hypothesis had merit, and I agreed that it explained a good part of the Trump phenomenon, I just didn't think that it captured the complexity of the support he is receiving, but maybe we all do have a latent authoritarian gene or something.

Sometimes Donut, I have no idea what you are arguing for or against.

It is not a simplistic theory. You are engaging in a strawman argument and he is rightly mocking you for it.

[wally]

And we're supposed to love your armchair psychology?

Ironic, isn't it?!

[I.J. Reilly]

This was an interesting read from Marginal Revolution on core differences between Republicans and Democrats: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...democrats.html

[Omaha 680]

When all is said and done and the Donald loses to HRC in the general, this just might end up being what the Republican Party ends up settling on as the problem and closing the primaries will be the solution.

Of course, this will demonstrate a lack of introspection and an inability to course correct, but that would be par for the course.

Perhaps the appropriate course correction would be to follow the democrat lead and appoint superdelegates as insurance for situations like this.

[BlueK]

I'm not worried about a dictatorship in America. Worry about something realistic.

I'm not worried about it happening today or tomorrow. But I don't have to like the direction this is going.

[byu71]

No it isn't. I get that you disagree, but go ahead and do so without labeling something as crazy, dumb or stupid. They are the same crap sandwich and both are awful choices to have when voting.

Donald is a buffoon and corruption has followed the Clinton's everywhere, so go ahead an make arguments on the margin how Hillary is incrementally less bad than Trump. However, realize that to many you are just arguing about distinctions without meaning.

You are dealing with the Donald Trump of this board. I have gotten in the gutter with him before and it really isn't worth it.

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[byu71]

Well, whether Trump means it or not, it's pretty universal through history that rising dictators signal well ahead what they plan to do. And many times most people just assume they aren't being serious until they get there and actually do it. Trump tells me what he stands for and I HATE IT. So I won't vote that piece of shit.

Before someone says it, yes I am on a presciption today. Now, am I getting a sense some of you think Trump could become a dictator or have I missed the points being made. If some are promoting the dictator scenario, even on drugs I can come to the conclusion that is silly. Obama can't pull it off, why would trump be able to.

[wally]

It is not a simplistic theory. You are engaging in a strawman argument and he is rightly mocking you for it.

Oh man! are we arguing about my use of the word simplistic? is that what it is? Okay, I hereby retract the word simplistic from my initial post! Clearly the author and the researchers that she cited have done a lot of complicated work in detailing how latent craving for authoritarian leadership explains Trumps popularity.

Can I still maintain my position that there is more that explains the rise of the Trump than what the Vox article says? I promise I won't engage Donut in any semantically oriented arguments in the future!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Before someone says it, yes I am on a presciption today. Now, am I getting a sense some of you think Trump could become a dictator or have I missed the points being made. If some are promoting the dictator scenario, even on drugs I can come to the conclusion that is silly. Obama can't pull it off, why would trump be able to.

Nobody is claiming that Trump will be able to become a dictator. That is just a dumb strawman that SU tossed out.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This was an interesting read from Marginal Revolution on core differences between Republicans and Democrats: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...democrats.html

This is a good article.

I like this in particular:

At the state and local level, the governments controlled by Republicans tend to be better run, sometimes much better run, than those controlled by the Democrats (oops). And a big piece of how American people actually experience government comes at the state and local level.

This superior performance stems from at least two factors. First, Republican delusions often matter less at the state and local level, and furthermore what the core Republican status groups want from state and local government is actually pretty conducive to decent outcomes. The Democrats in contrast keep on doling out favors and goodies to their multitude of interest groups, and that often harms outcomes. The Democrats find it harder to “get tough,” even when that is what is called for, and they have less of a values program to cohere around, for better or worse.

Second, the states with a lot of Democrats are probably on average harder to govern well (with some notable Southern exceptions). That may excuse the quality of Democratic leadership to some degree, but it is not an entirely favorable truth for the broader Democratic ethos. Republicans, of course, recognize this reality. Even a lot of independent voters realize they might prefer local Republican governance, and so in the current equilibrium a strong majority of governors, state legislatures, and the like are Republican.

Think on those facts — or on the state of Illinois — the next time you hear the Democrats described as the reality-oriented community. That self-description is “the opium of the Democrats.”

- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin....BBfHozqT.dpuf

It's important for the Republicans to understand why they've become ascendant at the state, municipal and at the Congressional levels, but not in Presidential elections. Although, perhaps even that is overstated. We've had three two term presidents in a row, so of course you can cherry pick the statistics and say "the Democrats have won four of the last six elections." The fact of the matter is that Marco Rubio would likely beat Hillary Clinton if the national polls right can be believed -- but it would be close from an electoral perspective. But if you look at the things state by state, the Republicans need to figure out why states like Michigan and Pennsylvania are seemingly impossible for them to win despite the fact they've elected republican governors and senators in the recent past and why the Republicans are starting to lose states like Virginia and Nevada more frequently. The appeal to minorities only tells part of the story once you look at the white population percentage in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.