For Republican and independent voters who lean right: Facing the Trump reality

[Nathan Towne]

My question is for Republican voters and/or for independent voters who lean rightwards in onw way or another and are not Trump supporters, how are you facing the reality of Trump being the nominee for the Republican party? For me, I am imbued with quite a bit of sadness and extreme disappointment that not only is he going to be the nominee of the party, but also that Hillary Clinton is gong to win the Presidency of the United States.

[TJ in Oregon]

Badly. I'm trying to figure out if I should vote for Hillary, not that it matters of course since Wisconsin won't be close.

[Mike Thick]

I'm in the "acceptance" phase, I guess. I mean, if we survived Goldwater, we can probably survive this.

[Roemerista]

A Trump nomination is a bridge too far. He is a disgusting spiteful little man.

His looming nominiation makes me ashamed for all the years that I have voted and worked for the GOP. All of the worst stereotypes of who GOP votes are appears to be true.

I am still hoping the party destroys itself by stealing it from him.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm in the "acceptance" phase, I guess. I mean, if we survived Goldwater, we can probably survive this.

The thing is, y'all still haven't even finished your "death by Bush" yet. This Trump thing is like a nail in the coffin.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, he hasn't won yet. Two, he's still behind.

Three, I've been an independent since the party selected Romney. I'm not getting off my butt for Trump. I'll enjoy sitting in a bar in November, writing my election report and summing it up in two words.

Trump. Loses.

[Ljube]

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Republican Party since Reagan.

[Young Conservative]

Ill support him enthusiastically... Ive moved out of the never Trump crowd, but Cruz/Carly is so much better

[Indy Texas]

A Trump nomination is a bridge too far. He is a disgusting spiteful little man.

His looming nominiation makes me ashamed for all the years that I have voted and worked for the GOP. All of the worst stereotypes of who GOP votes are appears to be true.

I am still hoping the party destroys itself by stealing it from him.

It took you that long to figure it out?

The whole "standing up for states' rights and the Constitution" thing sounds nice in campaign boilerplate and I'm sure a lot of the conservatives who work in think tanks and Congress genuinely believe that.

But the reason a bunch of people in the Deep South who had voted Democratic their whole life swung to Goldwater in '64 was because they wanted to keep the n*****s out of their swimming pools and schools. The reason people voted for Ronald Reagan was because they thought he was going to stick it to "those people" across town. Reagan couldn't sell trickle down economics for what it was and he knew it, which is why he had to cloak it in that appallingly race baiting trope about the "welfare queen" in the Cadillac.

If you take away the race-baiting and culture warfare, you can't win. The dog won't take his heartworm pill unless you hide it in a bunch of dog food so he won't notice. The dog whistling and "Faith, Family, Freedom" rhetoric is the dog food to hide the pill for the GOP voters.

[Lincoln Republican]

I am deeply saddened that my party, the party of Lincoln and Reagan, has been taken over by the dark forces of hatred, sexism, racism, bigotry, ignorance.

The once mighty and great Republican Party has been set back by decades.

Red necks and shrill fanatical Trump spokespersons now wield great power in the party.

Two things are certain, Trump will be the Republican nominee, and Clinton will crush him.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'm more sad about Trump being the nominee and what that represents than I am about Clinton being president at the end of all this.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same avatar, 180 degree politics.

There's a reason conservatives were successful against the party of Amnesty, Acid and Abortion. And it's not because of racism but because of convictions for conservativism.

If Democrats were that great for minorities, why are things so bad in Detroit, or Chicago?

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same avatar, 180 degree politics.

There's a reason conservatives were successful against the party of Amnesty, Acid and Abortion. And it's not because of racism but because of convictions for conservativism.

If Democrats were that great for minorities, why are things so bad in Detroit, or Chicago?

We could just as easily flip that around and ask why Louisiana and Mississippi are such beacons of human development despite the steady hands of Bobby Jindal and Phil Bryant.

If I were a poor black woman, I'd much rather live in Chicago than in the Mississippi Delta.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The interesting part is that Texas just recently crossed into the upper half of states by GDP per capita. First southern state to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of Chicago's 800 census tracts, 40 percent have deep poverty rates above the city average. Nearly two-thirds of tracts with above average rates have predominately black populations, including tract 3504, which includes the Dearborn Homes public housing project in Bronzeville. The tract has the highest deep poverty rate in the city, about 50 percent of its residents.

 In 2015 terms, that is $5,885 a year for an individual or less than $12,125 for a family of four.

Mississippi's poverty rate is only about 23 percent, about half that of these districts.

[Mercenary]

I have mostly accepted he will be the nominee but I still am holding out hope for some kind of miracle preventing him from getting 1237. Overall I have a feeling of embarrassment as an American. I am just thankful I have never been registered republican as that limits the embarrassment to some degree. I dislike that Clinton is going to be the president, I really don't like her. But I suppose she is the lesser evil this election. As bad as she is at least she isn't a complete national embarrassment like Trump. I hope that something positive can come from this but I am not sure what that could be. Perhaps a realignment of some sort.

[Santander]

Of course I'll support him. At least he's not a neocon like Rubio or Bush.

It's one thing to call Rumsfeld or Cheney neocons (which I disagree with), but Bush?! Yes, the Bush administration had highly influential neocons in it, but they were mostly gone by the second term, and they were never more than an influential minority.

[Clark Kent]

He still isn't the nominee.

[NHI]

I'm behind him 100%.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The interesting part is that Texas just recently crossed into the upper half of states by GDP per capita. First southern state to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of Chicago's 800 census tracts, 40 percent have deep poverty rates above the city average. Nearly two-thirds of tracts with above average rates have predominately black populations, including tract 3504, which includes the Dearborn Homes public housing project in Bronzeville. The tract has the highest deep poverty rate in the city, about 50 percent of its residents.

 In 2015 terms, that is $5,885 a year for an individual or less than $12,125 for a family of four.

Mississippi's poverty rate is only about 23 percent, about half that of these districts.

So you're going to compare the poorest parts of Chicago to Mississippi as a whole?

As for your point about Texas, I think this is a pointless argument to begin with. States' economic fortunes really don't have a lot to do with what party is in power. West Virginia is going to be poor no matter who is in charge. Texas' oil and gas isn't going to vanish from underneath the ground depending on election results. When you have free movement of labor and capital within a country, it's going to naturally gravitate to rich, growing areas. West Virginia is a s***hole because it's easier for smart, ambitious people to just go somewhere else than it is to stay and try to make the state wealthier.

But my point was that what you are doing for poor people is a separate issue from economic growth. Your poor black woman in Chicago isn't going to benefit all that much from economic growth if she's not qualified to do any of the high-skilled jobs it accompanies and doesn't own any stock in companies that are going to be doing well. You can have a state with high GSP growth and high per capita income and still have her not be significantly better off. Georgia is a good example of that paradox: plenty of Fortune 500 companies and wealthy suburbs, and plenty of people in inner Atlanta and rural areas who derive little to no benefit from any of that.

[pppolitics]

I am deeply saddened that my party, the party of Lincoln and Reagan, has been taken over by the dark forces of hatred, sexism, racism, bigotry, ignorance.

The once mighty and great Republican Party has been set back by decades.

Red necks and shrill fanatical Trump spokespersons now wield great power in the party.

Two things are certain, Trump will be the Republican nominee, and Clinton will crush him.

The Republican Party has been taken over by the "dark forces" decades ago in the 60s with the Southern Strategy.

One, he hasn't won yet. Two, he's still behind.

Three, I've been an independent since the party selected Romney. I'm not getting off my butt for Trump. I'll enjoy sitting in a bar in November, writing my election report and summing it up in two words.

Trump. Loses.

Still in denial

He still isn't the nominee.

Still in denial.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's not as much economic disparity in MS as in Chicago. Point taken is that it really depends on where you live in Illinois, and with COL lower in MS, your standard of living is higher there than in Chicago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Texas *was* poor. Now, after 20 years of Republicans, it's not. Detroit *was* rich. Now, after 40 years of Democrats, it's a hole.

It takes time for economic effects to turn around poor places and make them rich. California, despite all it's natural advantages is no longer in the lead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with that. West Virginia has natural assets that could make it extremely wealthy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Texas, again, it was a poor state. Now it's not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that the people in power do make a difference. And that institutional advantages between the North and the South continue, though they are a lot less today than in the 60s.

I foresee a time when the industrial base of America moves south. We are well on that way today.
 

  
 

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For all the hullaballoo, there hasn't been a single GOP nominee that hasn't won New York state in the primary

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's not as much economic disparity in MS as in Chicago. Point taken is that it really depends on where you live in Illinois, and with COL lower in MS, your standard of living is higher there than in Chicago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Texas *was* poor. Now, after 20 years of Republicans, it's not. Detroit *was* rich. Now, after 40 years of Democrats, it's a hole.

It takes time for economic effects to turn around poor places and make them rich. California, despite all it's natural advantages is no longer in the lead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with that. West Virginia has natural assets that could make it extremely wealthy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Texas, again, it was a poor state. Now it's not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that the people in power do make a difference. And that institutional advantages between the North and the South continue, though they are a lot less today than in the 60s.

I foresee a time when the industrial base of America moves south. We are well on that way today.
 

  
 

Texas wasn't some underdeveloped backwater prior to the Republicans sweeping statewide offices there in 1994. Like most of the country, its per capita income grew considerably during the 20th century. Coming to the realization that there was something under the ground that could fetch a high price significantly changed our destiny, which, before that, seemed to be growing things above ground that didn't generate as much income (namely cotton and wheat).

Do you really think Republicans could have stopped globalization from happening? Do you think they could have stopped the Big Three carmakers from being so shortsighted in designing cars that people didn't want?

As for West Virginia, get your head out of the sand. Their only natural asset is a diwndling supply of coal that is uneconomical. Their human capital is virtually nonexistent. Their geography is completely inappropriate for heavy industry - too many mountains for road and rail transport and too far from major cities. If it weren't for Robert Byrd's pork barrel projects, the place would be even more of a wasteland than it is.

[pppolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For all the hullaballoo, there hasn't been a single GOP nominee that hasn't won New York state in the primary

And your point is?

The New York primary normally comes so late that the nominee has already been decided.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same is not true of any other state that votes at the same time.