Is it just me, or does Trump seem untouchable?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump is a guy who is going to make other people take him down in the open, in front of everyone else.  And he's doing this because of the very political environment his enemies have helped create.

It's the GOP that has explicitly fanned the flames of rebellion against "political correctness".  It's Republicans who encourage folks to, in some cases, be downright insensitive and rude in their public responses to various events, in their reaction to demands to be "politically correct".  (And, yes, I agree that the degree to which political correctness has taken root is pretty unreasonable.)  But guys like Trump thrive in that environment, and his constituency includes a large number of folks who are sick of being told that they cannot voice their grievances explicitly because "others might be offended".  These folks don't care if Trump was a cad toward a female, or if he made comments toward females they would take a swing at someone for if he said that about their wife or daughter.  These folks are tired of being told that their complaints are invalid and expression of their complaints are offensive, and they are not going to abandon Trump just because he's rough around the edges in his public discourse.

What Trump can't get around is that the rest of the GOP dislikes him, and is committed to preventing his nomination.  Trump's entry into the Presidential race brings out into the open the status of the GOP Presidential nomination contenders as a closed party that he, Trump, just crashed.  It's not unlike George Wallace deciding to run as a Democrat in 1972, although at that time, the Democratic Party had an entire wing of conservative Southerners who'd have been OK with Wallace's nomination.  While Trump is being reacted to by the national Republicans much as the 1972 Wallace was by the Democrats, he doesn't have the kind of concentrated regional appeal of established Democrats (however conservative they may have been) that couldn't be ignored.

If Trump stays in the race and gains a chunk of delegates (perhaps the biggest single chunk of delegates), that's where he'll be stopped.  I am convinced that Trump will have to win 50% of the delegates outright to get the nomination, and I don't see how THAT could happen.  The other candidates may drop out, but they will not release their delegates until a deal is made to coalesce around an "approved" ticket.  Then, Trump will either bolt (not likely), endorse the ticket (but not enthusiastically, and his "campaign help" will not be wanted), or give a very tepid endorsement while letting loose throughout the campaign with statements of how the GOP is doing it wrong, did him wrong, isn't going to win, etc.  He'll be voting Republican while being a vocal critic. 

The last of these three (3) options is the one I think Trump will ultimately choose.  I think Trump will be getting a taste of being an "insider" and discover that he likes it to a degree.  He's now vested in the GOP, and, over time, the GOP will, however involuntarily, be vested in Trump.  Because if it DOESN'T play out that way, Trump will be leading a permanent faction that will be big enough to keep Democrats in the White House for another 16 years.   

[Fuzzy Bear]

I doubt anyone supports Trump because they think he's a good person.

I certainly don't think Trump is a "good person", but is Jeb Bush?  Is Scott Walker?  Walker and Jeb are bigger scumbags than Trump could dream of being.  Especially Walker, because he's a sell-out scumbag.  Without someone to sell out to, Scott Walker wouldn't even be a Milwaukee County Commissioner.

People support Trump because he gives voice to their specific (and ignored) grievances.  Trump is about to show us just how much mileage one can get out of such politics.  I think a lot, because Trump's solutions are for elected officials to do what they said they were going to do (e. g. build the border fence).  Note, by the way, that Building the Border Fence isn't promising an outcome; it's promising a specific act, which is what a President CAN deliver.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Even one of these events would have been enough to take down one of the 2011 flavors of the month.

Not in all cases.  It took quite a few sexual harrassment claims (not to mention a fair few stupid comments and senior moments) to take down Cain.

Well it wasn't so much that it was insufficient to take him down than it was that multiple claims were needed in order for them to be taken seriously.

Right.  But it's the similar with Trump and the Ivana allegation.  If there were several more stories like that, Trump would be toast.

Trump would be toast if there are more stories that portray him in a Cosby-esque light.  But I don't believe there are such stories.  I'm sure he's been a cad at times, but that's not the kind of story that sinks candidates as it did in the past (for better or for worse).

Trump is a guy who knows what dirt is available to others on him.  He knows he's slept around and not always been a good boy in his personal life.  Indeed, he knows that there are portions of his personal life that folks might find unsavory.  I am CERTAIN that he has calculated all of this prior to putting himself in a position where he will be personally scrutinized in ways that he has never been before.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A long time ago, some pundit (I forget who) suggested that Ronald Reagan would be elected President because he's a real actor, and, as such, at an incredible advantage over the mere lawyer-actors that populate the Presidential candidacy pool.  This was in the 1970s, and it proved to be correct.  Reagan was the perfect candidate; he took direction, he knew what to say and how to handle people, and he projected likablilty.  People liked Reagan.  I liked him, and I didn't vote for him either time he was nominated (although I abstained from voting for President totally in 1980, voting straight Democratic for everyone else). 

Trump's not likeable in the sense Reagan was, but he does know how to take direction and he projects decisiveness.  Even if he's been all over the map on some issues, being decisive doesn't mean you never change.  It means that you commit early enough to where, if your decision appears to be wrong, you have time to change course, as opposed to being stuck with a lemon by picking at the last minute.  People like this, and will forgive a degree of inconsistency in exchange for decisiveness.

But it does come down to dimmidmi said about Trump being a known commodity.  People know ghe's brassy and crass and thy know he's slept around.  They know he's one to say "You're fired!".  Oddly enough, saying "You're fired!" is a quality that seems to be lacking in Presidents, even ones that wre considered great leaders.  Reagan, the great leader, couldn't fire anyone, and he paid derly for that.  Indeed, Nixon was the last President I can think of who was really willing to fire a disloyal subordinate; every President since seems to pussyfoot around that.  Trump would bring "You're fired!" back to the Oval Office, and the's a case to be made that this is needed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Voters will tire of his act in due course. Some enjoy his antics, but many of those will not really in the end want him to be POTUS. The job is just too important. Be patient. And that would be my advice to the candidates, except perhaps those trying to generate their own buzz to get into the mix, and have higher visibility. Maybe Christie will go there. They speak the same language.

It never dawns on folks that Trump may well be leading because people agree with him on the issues he emphasizes moreso than they do with other candidates, and that the issues Trump emphasized are more important to a big slice of the GOP than the issues other candidates are emphasizing.

Trump's supporters may be dissed and dismissed as "low information voters", but since Baker v. Carr, it's one-man-one-vote, regardless of the "information" level.  They know where they stand and what they want, and they are tired of the political class trot out it's approved candidates and lecturing them about what they really need.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The problem with fighting against Trump is that he is essentially running on a platform of magic. All our problems will be solved easily through his superior negotiating skills.

He will fix illegal immigration by getting Mexico to build a big wall. He will save Social Security by getting China to send back all those jobs pumping up the economy and tax base. He will just get Iran to give us a better nuke deal because reasons.  He has a simple magical solution for everything. And apparently a good chunk of GOPers believe it because he is rich and successful so sure he can do it. How do you argue against something like that?

If a lot of the GOP believe "the guy's rich, he can work miracles", it's because the GOP establishment and the GOP donor base has worked to foster this belief.  After all, the GOP is the party of the super-rich and their policies are tilted toward the super-rich, so softening attitudes toward the super-rich is a needed tactic in order for the GOP to have a shot at winning its races.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As a GOP County chair (population 180,000) with a large tea party base and a large "traditional conservative" base, I don't see Trump making it. He's not trusted. Some like that he's blunt, tells off the media, tells off the media's favorite McCain, and gives the DC political class heartburn, but when push comes to shove, they aren't voting for him.

He may be "leading" in a meaningless August poll, but he also has the highest negatives among "R's" in that same poll. He also has 99% name recognition, compared to a Scott Walker for example.

His base of support is disaffecteds who don't always vote, and who rarely are active on the ground supporting a candidate. They usually don't donate. They usually don't volunteer. They post online. That's it. People confuse them with "Tea party." That's not the case and is due to media laziness. The only Trump supporters I see that are super active outside of disaffecteds are single issue borders types.

The moderates I've talked to tend to support Kasich, Jeb, or Walker (gets things done), sometimes Rubio. Not Huckabee, who is probably the most liberal Republican running. Trump offends them.

The traditional conservatives  tend to support Walker, Rubio, or Kasich (with reservations on a couple of issues). They don't trust Trump.

The religious conservatives love Cruz. Trump's mouth offends them. Some of them like Ben Carson as well.

Libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul.

2nd Amendment folks want to defeat Hillary (or O'Malley). They don't trust Trump on past statements.

The tea party conservatives tend to be split between Cruz, Rand Paul, and Walker (strongly dislike Jeb and Karl Rove) based on which area of issues is most important to them. A couple are Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina fans. They are extremely rigid on a lot of issues, but do their homework. Trump's donations are a major concern to them. Every tea party is different, but the ones in my area aren't Trump folks.

I could be wrong, but I'll be stunned (and disappointed) if Trump's the nominee.

I would vote for Trump in the GOP primary if the primary were held today.  I confess to being something of a RINO, but I'm still a Republican primary voter, and I am a social conservative.

I, too, would be stunned if Trump were the nominee.  I can't say I'd be disappointed, because the political establishment has provided the kind of free trade policies that caused the loss of manufacturing jobs in Michigan.  (My wife is from Michigan and I'm from New York, so we know about disappearing manufacturing jobs.)  Yes, we can bad-mouth unions, but it was the greed of the investor class, coupled with free trade agreements that took jobs that the Southern states stole from Michigan and New York and shipped to Mexico and China, courtesy of NAFTA and GATT.  And the bulk of the GOP candidates were OK with this.

You're a local party chair.  So you must see how the national GOP, over time, gave its corporate donors everything they wanted in exchange for rivers of campaign cash.  Part of that the corporate donors wanted was free trade so they could export jobs (which they did, and do).  You've seen what Pat Buchanan observed; the GOP gave their corporate donors everything they wanted, and they got the campaign cash, but it cost them the voters that gave them their landslides.  They lost Middle America for the GOP.  They lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and the industrial Midwest. 

You probably know that you can't win elections in Michigan without getting the votes of at least SOME unionized workers, and not just the ones that go to church.  Trump is talking to THOSE people, people who once delivered Michigan to the GOP 5 Presidential elections in a row.  They left in 1992 and they aren't back.  Some have died, but the younger ones like them aren't back, either.  Trump has the gumption to let these people know that their own party has screwed them.  As a registered Republican, I would like to know where the grass roots pushback is against free trade, which has ruined Michigan.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Voters will tire of his act in due course. Some enjoy his antics, but many of those will not really in the end want him to be POTUS. The job is just too important. Be patient. And that would be my advice to the candidates, except perhaps those trying to generate their own buzz to get into the mix, and have higher visibility. Maybe Christie will go there. They speak the same language.

It never dawns on folks that Trump may well be leading because people agree with him on the issues he emphasizes moreso than they do with other candidates, and that the issues Trump emphasized are more important to a big slice of the GOP than the issues other candidates are emphasizing.

Trump's supporters may be dissed and dismissed as "low information voters", but since Baker v. Carr, it's one-man-one-vote, regardless of the "information" level.  They know where they stand and what they want, and they are tired of the political class trot out it's approved candidates and lecturing them about what they really need.

He's even said he would support a pathway to citizenship, which is the main issue that he was emphasizing. There is no place for Trump sympathizers to go: they just like that he talks back.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249711-trump-would-grant-good-immigrants-pathway-to-legal-status

Trump states that he would support a pathway to "legal status", not necessarily citizenship, and only for such immigrants that have "done well".