Democrats are surprisingly NOT dependent on minority votes to win

[Badger]

Angrie's analysis is spot on, as is her calling out TNV for silly and sexist ad hominum attacks.

To summarize:

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels, which may drop as olds die and increasingly Dem friendly (or at least GOP unfriendly) youngs replace themat the polls.

The type of ugly, unabashedly racist and xenophobic campaign--like Trump's--necessary to even attempt (probably futile) significantly raising margins and turnout among whites to overcome unfavorable presidential election demographics is going to be profoundly ugly. The end result is likely to turn off notably more white voters--especially among millennials--than it will win.

If that weren't enough, the head to head matchup of Trump vs. Hillary is about the worst possible choice for the GOP to make utterly crucial inroads among the swing white women demographic.

[Badger]

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

Don't try to argue with Badger or convince him of anything. He is the worst kind of Dem hack there is: Hillbot concealed behind a blue avatar.

First off, yesterday this "Dem hack Hillbot" and his Republican wife together knocked on dozens of doors in the rain AND made almost 300 phone calls for the GOP, plus turned out a couple volunteers we recruited earlier this week to do likewise, all while taking care of the house landscaping, a bit of work for my job, and taking care of our two young boys. How many doors or phones have you reached this week? This month?

In this past year I've served on my county GOP's Executive and Central Committee's, donated a few hundred dollars either in contributons or sponsering/attending several party funraisers, and my wife is under serious consideration to be hired as a full time field organizer. What have you offered the Party beyond your impressive keyboard-fu warrior skills?

Compare our respective levels of involvement and commitment (or lack thereof) to the Republican Party, and you STILL want to call me a "Dem hack Hillbot"? Just because like most Republicans I've correctly pointed out how we've chosen the weakest possible nominee because Trump's patently unsuitable temperment is obvious to most swing voters, as well as both the folly and uglliness of Trump's "white power" electoral strategy??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm now going to respond to TN Volunteer's post myself, only cogently. Though if you ever need me to pimp slap you with another dose of reality like this again, just say the word.

[Badger]

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

On what basis do you say Republicans aren't near maxed out on white support in the Midwest? Trade issues?

[Badger]

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

Don't try to argue with Badger or convince him of anything. He is the worst kind of Dem hack there is: Hillbot concealed behind a blue avatar.

First off, yesterday this "Dem hack Hillbot" and his Republican wife together knocked on dozens of doors in the rain AND made almost 300 phone calls for the GOP, plus turned out a couple volunteers we recruited earlier this week to do likewise, all while taking care of the house landscaping, a bit of work for my job, and taking care of our two young boys. How many doors or phones have you reached this week? This month?

In this past year I've served on my county GOP's Executive and Central Committee's, donated a few hundred dollars either in contributons or sponsering/attending several party funraisers, and my wife is under serious consideration to be hired as a full time field organizer. What have you offered the Party beyond your impressive keyboard-fu warrior skills?

Compare our respective levels of involvement and commitment (or lack thereof) to the Republican Party, and you STILL want to call me a "Dem hack Hillbot"? Just because like most Republicans I've correctly pointed out how we've chosen the weakest possible nominee because Trump's patently unsuitable temperment is obvious to most swing voters, as well as both the folly and uglliness of Trump's "white power" electoral strategy??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm now going to respond to TN Volunteer's post myself, only cogently. Though if you ever need me to pimp slap you with another dose of reality like this again, just say the word.

Thanks for your reply!
Sorry about my previous posts/provocations.

Just try to point out the strengths of our nominee and not only his weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses.

Objectively speaking, any Republican candidate would be the underdog in 2016. Trump has the best chance because he can appeal to the working class Dems. If only he can unite the party behind him, no matter if the party really loves him, he will be victorious.

No worries. If we weren't still tired, grouchy, and even a little wet from yesterday I wouldn't have snapped quite so uch.

Now, explain to me the whole "working class white" appeal Trump supposedly has compared to other Republican candidates. Do we really think that Trump  has any more to gain on immigration issues than Romney pushing self-deportation had? not to mention what little Trump may gain around the edges than he'll lose from younger whites (especially women) from his caustic Xenophobia? Besides, what leads one to believe those arguments are more appealing to working class voters than affluent GOP-leaning suburbanites?

Maybe trade? The one thing I've started wondering would be if he ran as Perot 2.0, only if Perot won the GOP nomination in 92. There's some real parallels there: A highly temperamental gaffe prone billionaire with basically conservative/right of center economic views except highly critical of free trades agreements, and who downplays positions on social issues (other than Trump's views on immigration and monitoring Muslims, of course). And of course running against a Clinton who waas vulnerable on trust/integrity issues.

Any number crunchers out there have a theory what would've happened in 92 if Perot was the GOP nom, but with 2016 electoral demographics?

I suspect there would've been some voting shift between Bush voters who would take Clinton over giving Perot access to nukes (and even some Perot voters willing to send a protest vote, but who would've balked at his actually being president) on the one hand, and Clinton and Bush voters who liked Perot best but didn't want to support a spoiler.I'm guessing they would've probably cancelled each other out.

[Badger]

One more thing. Remember Romney's 47%? That effectively buried Romney.

Trump won't have a gaffe like that and even if he did, he would explain it away, since he is already gaffe prone.


Come to think of it, i remember that that 47% video was secretly recorder. Who knows what kind of riches Trump might be hiding, waiting for Hillary to become the nominee before unveiling them. A secret video of one of her Goldman Sachs speeches? That would bury her with the working class.

Well, I agree that Trump's gaffes cause less harm than a typical candidate's because the public is inured--even numbed--to him. But what you're describing is Trump's Achilles Heel: Other than running as a protectionist and rumors he secretly supports single payer (which he sure is hell isn't running on), his economic policies, both macro and micro, are essentially identical to Romney's. What are the chances Trump will make one or more "47%" equivalent gaffes before November, especially when goaded in debates and by Hillary-friendly members of the media? Pretty good I'd say, and then his anti-free trade bloviating won't be enough to save his image as "the (white) working man's friend".