Donald Trump

Three Ways Trump is a Democrat Problem Too

So much blame for Donald Trump's populism. What about Bernie Sanders'?

|

CNN

Some Democrats are starting to express public concern about the strength of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump's potential appeal in a general election contest, as Democratic party leaders continue to insist a Trump nomination would be their best outcome.

"Be careful what you ask for," Rep. Bonnie Thompson (D-Miss.) told The Hill. "A few months ago, nobody gave Donald Trump a chance of being a serious contender. Now he's the leader."

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a former head of the Democratic caucus, said he'd warned to take Trump seriously for months. "I do think he has appeal, to independents and blue-collar Democrats especially," Larson said.

"He comes along and says, 'I'm a deal maker, I'm about getting the deal done'," Larson told The Hill. "And they're so fed up of seeing nothing getting done and want to see him on the issues that strike to the core of their feelings."

Trump's particular lack of substantive policy proposals, even for often mealy-mouthed presidential campaigns, as well as his reliance on nationalist rhetoric, make it easier to interpret Trump solely through the lens of the appeal of celebrity bravado/machismo and populist/nationalist/racist feeling. Yet some of the political assumptions underlying Trump's coalition are hardly unique to him, or to Republicans.

The basis of the idea that Trump has cross-over appeal is rooted in some of the similarities between him and Bernie Sanders, the only Democratic candidate other than long-time presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton to make it past Iowa, and such an appeal could complicate things for Democrats, especially as illustrated by Sanders' campaign. Here's how:

TRUMP AND SANDERS OVERLAP ON IMMIGRATION

Sanders has said "open borders" (the principle that free people should be able to cross a border freely) are a right-wing conspiracy, hocking the myth that immigration deteriorates labor conditions in America. "They took er jerbs." Trump and other Republican's anti-immigration rhetoric is based on fears of immigrants that led 61 percent of Americans survey in a recent poll to say immigration of all kinds "jeopardizes the United States."

BOTH SIDES STOKE FEAR OF MUSLIMS

While Trump floated the idea of denying entry to Muslims (eventually correcting himself to say non-citizen Muslims) to "figure out" what was happening with terrorism, Sanders has framed U.S. involvement in the fight against ISIS as some sort of "war for the soul of Islam."

President Obama may publicly bemoan Islamophobia, but despite the change in war on terror terminology, he has expanded military operations in the Muslim world under the guise of counterterrorism. That's contributed to softening the ground for Islamophobia whether or not Obama himself acknowledges the U.S. government is killing military-aged Muslim males because they fit a terrorist profile.

TRUMP AND SANDERS SCAPEGOAT MONEY IN POLITICS

Another Trump selling point is his imperviousness to the influence of money in politics, another tool to create fear of an out-group. Sanders calls for a revolution against the "billionaires." The utter failure of "big money" super PACs to catapult candidates like Jeb Bush past Trump has done little to temper the misguided idea peddled by Democrats (and Donald Trump) that the desire to spend money to express yourself politically represents some kind of "threat" to democratic elections and so that certain people, identified by how much money they spend on political expression, should be scrutinized.

Last week, it was Trump's rhetoric on money in politics that yielded kind words from Louis Farrakhan in a sermon the Nation of Islam minister delivered recently. Trump, the anti-semitic Farrakhan noted, was the only candidate "who has stood in front of the Jewish community and said I don't want your money." For a long time in American politics and culture, Wall Street, moneyed interestes, and Jewishness were used as synonyms.

"Any time a man can say to those who control the politics of America, I don't want your money, that means you can't control me," Farrakhan said. "And they can't afford to give up control of the presidents of the United States."

Democrats, and Trump, may stick to the more generic "Wall Street" in their out-group fearmongering, but it shouldn't be a surprise anti-Semitic sentiment could be easily grafted onto that, especially as references to "Wall Street" are increasingly disconnected from specific concerns. "The business model of Wall Street is fraud," Sanders, the first Jewish candidate to win a major party primary, said at a recent debate. He may not be dogwhistling when he uses such rhetoric, but that doesn't mean there's not a dogwhistle there to blow on. It's what attracted Farrakhan about Trump, despite Trump's repeated assertions he'd be the "best" for Israel and Farrakhan's strongly anti-Israel views.

That trend toward the creation of out-groups—immigrants, Muslims, the rich, and other internal and external groupings based on race, class, gender, or whatever else—is the frothy mix out of which Donald Trump has emerged. Outrage directed toward him may have the perverse effect of playing into the us vs. them narrative Trump is using to build political support while avoiding the uncomfortable exercise of acknowledging similar, albeit differently packaged and presented, narratives by Sanders. The two aren't the first populist candidates America has seen, and are unlikely to be the last.

NEXT: Sanders Surprise in Michigan, Marcomentum Waning, School Cop Caught Kicking Student Charged: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is with this “three way” obsession?

    I admit they are fun. But it is difficult to form a stable relationship among the participants.

    1. Well, yeah. That’s why it’s better with strangers. Once and done. No follow-up. No messy interpersonal garbage afterward.

      1. I am Almanian, and I approve this message.

        1. Almanian! Good to see you. Still writing you in (running mate is Lizard People) on my ballot, come November. Hope all is well in the big mitten state up north.

  2. Bennie Thompson, not Bonnie. Just FYI

    1. Hey, you pick your threesome, we’ll pick ours. Imma go with Bonnie, too.

  3. And they’re so fed up of seeing nothing getting done and want to see him on the issues that strike to the core of their feelings

    Libertarians are way too rational for that. REASON.

    Thus they lose elections.

    1. I’d rather lose an election standing for what I believe in, then win one by supporting someone who is antithetical to those beliefs.

      1. What I really want to do is direct….

        1. I’m more than willing to support a compromise candidate like Rand Paul. Just not someone who is the fucking total opposite of what I believe on nearly every issue, like Trump.

    2. The persons running are rather interchangeable. What frightens me is the idea of “things getting done”. The libertarian case for Sanders is that he’d be the least capable of getting anything done. But, to quote Remo Gaggi, why take a chance?

  4. So Trump supports medical cannabis. Does he intend to reschedule pot? How will he implement his support?

  5. Ohh noooo, not “populism”. Ooooga booooga booooga! Arbeit Macht Frei!!

    Do we want a fucking represent democracy in America or don’t we?

    1. Do we want a fucking represent democracy in America or don’t we?

      No. The Founders intended a fucking representative republic as a stopgap against the worst excesses of majoritarianism.

      You ever wonder why the 17th Amendment was considered by the historical Progressives as their finest achievement?

      1. Yeah, the older I get, the more the 17th was huge fucking mistake. But the average person doesn’t give a shit about process and philosophy – it’s all about expedience and….something something crap.

        1. It was the biggest nail in the coffin of federalism. The House was intended to be the people’s representatives in Congress and the Senate was meant to be the states’ representatives. That’s why senators were appointed by the legislatures, because their role was to safeguard the interests of their respective states. Once they became directly elected, there ceased to be any meaningful distinction between the two offices, and there was no longer a bulwark against federal encroachment on state powers.

          1. You…you…elitist!!!!! *hisssssssss*

            1. He must hate Democracy!

            2. No, no, no. His comment was a dog whistle for “state’s rights” which “everyone knows” is just a dog whistle for segregation and Jim Crow. He’s not an elitist, he’s a RAAAAAACCCCCIIIIISSSSTTTT!!!1!!!!!

      2. It’s not ironic in the least that the 24 of the 25 longest-tenured US senators all came AFTER the 17th was ratified. Basically it was insurance AGAINST throwing the bums out. (The oddball was the Senator from Wyoming, the least-populous state.)

        18 of the 25 were/are Democrats. Thurmond gets listed as a Republican, but he originally won his seat as a Democrat.

        The only effective way to throw the bums out is to repeal the 17th. It will never happen.

      3. ^This. I fucking hate people who enthusiastically say we’re a democracy. There’s a reason why we’re not (or shouldn’t be) and too many idiots don’t understand it.

        1. No one knows. It’s like they don’t teach this in school.

    2. Not if “populism” involves violating the rights of a whole bunch of different people, for a whole bunch of different reasons.

    3. Do we want a fucking represent democracy in America or don’t we?

      No, retard we don’t. But I don’t expect a retard to understand. Go back to screaming at clouds, dipshit.

  6. “And they’re so fed up of seeing nothing getting done…”

    Once upon a time, when this country really was The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, the last thing most people wanted was government “getting things done.” To be an American meant having strong skepticism about government doing anything at all. Sadly, to think that way today gets you marginalized and mocked. It is sad to see how far we have fallen as a society.

    1. But it is so inefficient to have a govt that isn’t doing something… like having a hospital when there are no patients.

  7. “The basis of the idea that Trump has cross-over appeal is rooted in some of the similarities between him and Bernie Sanders”.

    You’re looking at it backwards.

    The reason to think Trump has crossover appeal isn’t because he’s in any way like Sanders. The reason to think Trump has crossover appeal is because he’s doing so well with disaffected, white, blue collar, middle class voters in the Republican Party–and in case everyone’s forgotten, white, blue collar, middle class voters are the base of the Democratic Party.

    The progressives have worked so hard demonize the white and uneducated and convince everybody that the Democratic Party is the party for BLM, gay rights, and illegal immigrants. I don’t think they ever stopped to wonder what would happen if their white, working class base started to believe that the Democratic Party was only for blacks, gays, and illegal aliens, too.

    What is it about being registered Democrats that makes progressives imagine that whites in the Democratic Party aren’t sick of being demonized as racist, uneducated, Catholic, homophobes, too? Yes, Donald Trump will do well with “Trump Democrats”, a demographic Reagan did well with, too and for mostly the same reasons–because the Democratic Party neglected its white blue-collar base to focus, narrowly, on the interests of minorities.

    1. My only hope is that if those voters switch sides that they will be induced to shift their positions on the size and scope of government. Trump doesn’t help with that though. Instead, he shifts the rest of the Republican party to be more like the white blue-collar part of the Democratic Party.

      1. My only hope is that if those voters switch sides that they will be induced to shift their positions on the size and scope of government.

        They didn’t when the voted for Reagan, they won’t now. Reagan was only an economic conservative for his first 2 years in office.

        1. I’m beginning to think that libertarians should give up on white America as any sort of bastion of free-market individualist values and starting thinking of presenting libertarianism as a cultural universal that anyone from anywhere ought to be able to support. In fact, live-and-let-live really is more in keeping with a culturally diverse society.

          1. I’m beginning to think that libertarians should give up on white America as any sort of bastion of free-market individualist values

            WTF? Since when did libertarian = Stormfront?

            1. Never, but there are lots of libertarians who can’t resist insisting that libertarianism and individualism in general is a produce of “Western European” and/or “Judeo-Christian” values. Which has to be alienating to non-white, non-western, non-European, non-Jewish, and non-Christian listeners.

              1. Well, so are fascism and communism, and modern Europe is hardly a paragon of classical liberalism, so anyone who conflates the intellectual history of libertarianism with modern-day concepts of ethnicity or religion should be roundly criticized and/or ignored.

      2. “My only hope is that if those voters switch sides that they will be induced to shift their positions on the size and scope of government. Trump doesn’t help with that though. Instead, he shifts the rest of the Republican party to be more like the white blue-collar part of the Democratic Party.”

        Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day.

        Breaking the Democratic Party identification down is a good first step.

        Breaking Republican Party identification down doesn’t hurt either, but we were never going to get anywhere so long as so many people equated capitalism and free markets with racism–and that’s been the Democratic Party’s go to narrative for a long time.

        If registered Democrats are sick of being maligned as racist idiots because they’re blue collar and white, then we’re making progress.

        1. What is the point of “breaking down” Republican and Democratic identities if it doesn’t involve convincing them to support free-market principles?

          I don’t see how getting a bunch of labor-union types to vote R because the R promises more protectionist trade policy is a win for us.

          1. Because the identity crap is a distraction from the economy.

            And you shouldn’t think that protectionism is the only thing these people buy into. Reagan sold these people on capitalism and free trade, economic growth and opportunity to solve their problems.

            You either believe we have legitimate solutions to problems of economic growth or you don’t. It helps that we’re right about where economic growth comes from, what kills it, etc.

            Right?

            1. Trump isn’t selling them on “capitalism and free trade, economic growth and opportunity”.
              He’s selling them on keeping out the Mexicans and the Mexican imports.

    2. Yes – that’s why Trump wins in open-primary states and white ghetto states.

        1. I think a “white ghetto” is more commonly referred to as a trailer park.

          1. But there are some lily-white ghettos in places like Boston with nary a double-wide in sight.

      1. Yeah, it’s no surprise to me that he won big in Michigan. This is a state that has been run by Democratic labor unions for decades and is a complete shithole now, and they’re still blaming it on Japanese imports.
        Trump comes along and says he’s going to slap tarriffs on Japanese cars, of course that’s going to sell to crossover voters in Michigan.

        1. I’m wondering how many cars are imported from Japan any more given the factories the Japanese car companies have built in the US.

          1. Trump will ban the export of car designs through a massive firewall that the Japanese will pay for, creating a whole raft of new jobs in industrial design and information security.

          2. Going back to using GNP instead of GDP may help, too. If we did, Americans would see that U.S. firms manufacture quite a lot of the world’s goods.

  8. See, this is the kind of article that can distinguish Reason from the mooing herd of soi-disant journalism. Well-thought, Ed.

    That trend toward the creation of out-groups?immigrants, Muslims, the rich, and other internal and external groupings based on race, class, gender, or whatever else?is the frothy mix out of which Donald Trump has emerged.

    I think this is backwards, at least partially. The populist appeals by Trump and Sanders are based on the self-identification of their supporters as being the out-group, outside the ruling/crony/entitled/privileged classes which currently wield or benefit from power. “Us v them” works both ways, and the people supporting Trump and Sanders see themselves as the “them” on the outside of the “us” that wields power, and not for “them’s” benefit.

    1. They are right to feel that way, just incorrect about who the out groups are.

      Sheila Jackson Lee is not a member of an out group. Neither is Barry Obama. You are and so am I; we don’t belong to the ruling class.

  9. the frothy mix

    A Santorum reference. Very good, Ed.

  10. “Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a former head of the Democratic caucus, said he’d warned to take Trump seriously for months. “I do think he has appeal, to independents and blue-collar Democrats especially,” Larson said.”

    Listen to that guy.

    It isn’t about Sanders. It’s about the demographic.

    Play identity politics to the hilt and convince everybody you’re all about blacks, illegal aliens and gays–and then demonize the uneducated and white for being racist.

    The Democrats are so lost, they don’t even see why that’s a problem for them. And they can’t hide their disdain for white working people. Oppose any progressive on most any issue, especially global warming, and you’ll soon hear all about how stupid and uneducated you are. It’s the same on any race issue. God, white people are so racist!

    Now get out there and vote for Hillary, you stupid honky!

  11. I find it odd when Sanders supporting journalist call trump a demagogue. Trump is but Sanders is the exact same way but in different areas.

    1. I find it odd when Sanders supporting journalists call Trump a demagogue.

      You do, seriously?

      Everything that the scum in the JournoList is saying about Trump, 95% of it would be exactly the same if Ted Cruz was the front-runner, and 90% of the same shit would eventually be said about poor little Marco Rubio if he had won the nomination.

      These gutter rats don’t have an honest or principled bone in their body.

      1. Honesty has never been the strong suit of leftist writers:

        Matthew Yglesias? Verified account ?
        ?@mattyglesias

        @Heminator I think fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do, yes. That’s an honest view.

        11:24 AM – 13 Aug 2010

        1. Wonderful. He honestly believes he is entitled to lie. See, he’s honest!

          1. I wonder if he ever figured out how to send those dvds back to Netflix. Or was that Ezra Klein?

    2. Trump and Sanders are really selling the same message on trade and spending to very similar demographics. They both want to ban foreign imports and spend more money. Where they diverge is that Trump is culturally conservative, and Sanders is culturally liberal. But in terms of the economic policies they advocate they are actually very similar. And they appeal to disaffected economically marginalized whites in both camps. Sanders appeals to unemployed college grads with useless humanities degrees, and Trump appeals to blue collar whites who have been laid off from factory job. And they are both telling their supporters the answer is less trade and more governkment spending.

      1. “Trump is culturally conservative”

        Are there some examples of this?

        1. Yea i don’t think he is. Probably closer to a democrat.

          1. Culturally conservative =/= religious conservative.

            Trump might not be religious, but he’s definitely culturally conservative in the sense of being a part of a traditional white male mainstream American culture. He’s not out there smoking weed or crossdressing or doing yoga.

        2. Did you sleep through the whole “We’re going to make them say ‘Merry Christmas’ again” thing? Not saying Trump is a balls to the walls CultCon, but he dipped more than his toe in that pool.

          1. Just Googled it – thank you!

            So on some points he uses culturally conservative rhetoric.

            I wonder if there are examples of him doing this when he *wasn’t* running for office.

        3. How about the fact that he owns the Miss Universe pagent, which is kind of like the antithesis of feminism?

          1. It’s not very feminist, but it’s not really the sort of thing you see at BYU, either.

            Correct me if I’m wrong!

            1. “Culturally conservative” encompasses a much broader spectrum than BYU.

              I’m talking about conservative views of masculinity and femininity, loyalty and patriotism, and respect for authority. Trump very much embodied culturally conservative values on all those things. He’s a “man’s man”, his wives are beauty queens, he’s stated his support for NSA spying and taken the side of the police on police shooting cases, and he regularly expresses his patriotism in a way that only conservatives do.

  12. Trump said, back in a 1990 Playboy interview:

    If the grass did look greener, which political party do you think you’d be more comfortable with?
    Well, if I ever ran for office, I’d do better as a Democrat than as a Republican-and that’s not because I’d be more Republican-and that’s not because I’d be more liberal, because I’m conservative. But the working guy would elect me. He likes me. When I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their windows.

    What’s the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval Office?
    Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I’d throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country and on all Japanese products, and we’d have wonderful allies again.

    And how would President Trump handle it?
    He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn’t trust anyone. He wouldn’t trust the Russians; he wouldn’t trust our allies; he’d have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we’re defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. . . . We’re being laughed at around the world, defending Japan?

    You categorically don’t want to be President?
    I don’t want to be President. I’m one hundred percent sure. I’d change my mind only if I saw this country continue to go down the tubes.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..rview-1990

    1. A 26 year old interview? I don’t even own any scotch that old. Although I do have a bottle of brandy that dates back that far . . . .

      1. That interview is older than most of his wives

        /inevitable joke

      2. A 26 year old interview?

        The age of it seems irrelevant IMO except for providing context. Nothing in the quoted portion contradicts what Trump is presently saying or any of his apparent motives.

        He said he would only run if things got worse, and he said he would run as a Democrat based upon the electoral politics of the time.

        One could fairly conclude that things did get worse and Trump no longer feels that the Democrats represent “the working guy”, hence why he is running as a Republican. The fact that Trump holds no allegiance to the GOP is as true today as it was in 1990.

        1. True enough.

          Back in 1990, he was probably pretty solidly in the mainstream of the Dem party. Now, though, the same views get you stranded on its right wing.

  13. Yes, Trump has appeal to Democratic voters. Because he’s a big government, big spending, anti-free-market populist. No shit.

    That’s exactly why if he actually WON it would be a disaster for Republicans who actually care about their core principles. It would cement the Republicans as a big government anti-trade party – sort of Democrats lite, minus the civil liberties.

    1. Wait…whut? Democrats and civil liberties? Am I reading that wrong? They have fanatical support for our First and Second amendment rights? Fourth?

      1. They’re better on certain things than the Republicans. But that’s beside the point. Trump would just make the Republican party WORSE if he succeeded in importing all of the Democratic party’s rejects.

        1. They’re better on certain things than the Republicans.

          What things? Not freedom of speech, religion or assembly. Not the right to keep and bear arms. Not due process. Certainly not on any unenumerated rights other than abortion.

          1. I think her point is that the GOP will get worse on the issues you mention by bringing Dem rejects in. Trump would absolutely cave on speech and guns.

            1. I guess it depends on whether those are Dem rejects because they think the Dems don’t go far enough in abrogating those rights, or are trying to go too far.

          2. The D’s are still better than the R’s on speech, criminal justice, torture, habeas corpus, and the 4th amendment. And do note that it’s only been under Obama that we finally started to see movement on asset forfeiture reform.

            A lot of that is due to things like BlackLivesMatter. There was this brief moment in 2013 or so when Republicans started to say things like hey, maybe black people shouldn’t be gunned down arbitrarily in the middle of the street.

            Have you noticed them saying that lately?

        2. So the rejects will either make the GOP worse or the Dems stronger. By making the Dems weaker AND the GOP worse, he might accidentally accomplish what libertarians have been incapable of doing.

          1. You mean by collecting all the authoritarians together under a Republican banner, with a weakened socialist opposition, that will be just awesome for libertarians?
            How exactly?

  14. BTW, is Reason really going to join in with legitimizing the silly invented term “Islamophobia”?

    1. Now that you mention it, that is a rather dishonest term. Most people don’t give a shit what you call your god or what church you attend. People take offense at certain cultural practices. The fear isnt about Allah, it is about indiscriminate mass killings and the mutilation of girls.

      1. Right. That’s why it’s not called “Allahphobia”, though “Shariaphobia” would be more accurate.

        1. It’s an (inordinate) fear of Islamic violence. It has a basis in reality but one completely out of proportion to its actual danger.

          Where I live is a rather heavily Indian area – the Hindu Center of Virginia is right down the street from my house. No one remotely is bothered by this, but the building of a large mosque nearby was a source of controversy. The reason is that no one worries about Hindus blowing shit up or shooting up office parties.

          1. It’s an (inordinate) fear of Islamic violence.

            Islamobiaiophobia is a mouthful though.

          2. The reason is that no one worries about Hindus blowing shit up

            -1 Tamil Tigers

            1. As far as I know, the Tamil Tigers a)never attacked anyone outside of India and Sri Lanka b)are no longer active.

      2. No, the point is the “-phobia” suffix is always mean to infer irrationality. It’s used to reject discussion.

  15. This post almost sounds like a response to a comment I saw in this forum yesterday…

    Jackand Ace|3.8.16 @ 9:53AM|#

    “What does the Trump phenomena say about Americans? Nothing. At least not yet.”

    Good try, Shikha, at trying to spread the blame around. Trump is indeed winning, but it’s among the Republican electorate that he is winning. Try to be accurate and eliminate Independents and Democrats from your castigation, at least for the moment. It’s your beloved GOP who deserves the blame.

    So what does it say about the fitness of democracy in America? Nothing. What does it say about the fitness of democracy in the GOP? I guess lots.

    1. Trump is indeed winning, but it’s among the Republican electorate that he is winning.

      Except that Cruz does as well or better in closed primaries, so I’m not sure this is entirely accurate.

      1. Trump, until further notice, is a GOP phenomena. He is posited as a candidate for President by the Republican Party. Not the Democrats. He has won about 15 states in the Republican primaries, whether open or closed. Not the Democrat primaries. Trump in national polls of Republican voters enjoys as much as 48% support. Not Democrat voters.

        Stop making excuses for the GOP. They certainly haven’t earned it. If he becomes President, I won’t make excuses for Democrats or Independents.

        1. You must have missed my multiple posts hoping to see the Repubs reduced to smoking rubble.

          You need to understand there is a difference between the Republican Party, the Republican electorate, and the people voting for Trump.

          1. joe’s self-esteem is dependent upon not understanding it.

            1. And Venezuela isnt a totalitarian shithole either.

        2. I won’t make excuses for Democrats or Independents.

          Well, someone certainly doesn’t lack for self awareness.

        3. Have you seen the turnout numbers for the Republican vs. Democratic party primaries?

          1. Which means what exactly? Democrats are the ones making trump the leader in the GOP nomination process?

            1. I think they are a part of it, either because some Dems are angry white males, or because they are voting ‘strategically’.

            2. Democrats are the ones making trump the leader in the GOP nomination process?

              To some extent, yes. Trump does better in open primaries than in closed ones. The more non-Republicans participating in the Republican primaries, the more votes that go to Donald Trump.

              Trump has a base of support in the Republican Party to be sure, but the average Republican primary voter is not voting for Trump.

            3. Yes. White working-class voters are crossing party lines to vote for Trump.

              1. Get back to me after the Florida primary.

                1. How many white working class types live in Florida? It’s a retirement home with Cubans.

                  1. Aren’t we talking about who is responsible for Trump, the Reps or the Dems? What, white working class whites are the only demographic in either? Dems own white working class whites?

                    Tell you what, get back to me after Trump wins the Republican nomination.

                    1. The point is that Trump is TAKING working class whites from the Democrats. The kind of working class whites who belong to unions, which used to be solid Democratic voters.

  16. Trump, the anti-semitic Farrakhan noted, was the only candidate “who has stood in front of the Jewish community and said I don’t want your money.”

    Wait, I thought Trump was not Hitler? I keep losing track.

    1. Well, Hitler DID want the Jews’ money and property. He just didn’t want the Jews themselves.

  17. Trump is not “the cause of a GOP implosion but the final effect of an intellectual and political hollowing-out of any semblance of commitment to limited government, individual rights, and free markets.”

    Gillespie is spot on here. Reagan at least paid lip service to libertarianism, and I think he actually believed in limited government. Bush, pere et fil, and their cronies were big-government, Rockefeller Republicans. GOP foreign policy was entirely co-opted by the neo-cons. GOP politics were based upon building a coalition of taxpayers, war-mongers, evangelical moralists, social conservatives, and cronies in select professions and industries rather than any sort of ideology.

    There is no excuse for libertarians to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary this year. I’m going to vote Libertarian assuming that Gary Johnson is the nominee. He is the only person running in 2016 who is both sane and serious.

    1. At some point you do have to admit that, like the rest of the planet, 95% of the people want socialism and they deserve to get it good and hard.

      The historical anomaly was that for almost two centuries a large enough minority was able to successfully sell the ideas of limited government, individual rights, and free markets to win power instead of selling the idea of slavery which the vast majority so desperately want. People want the safety of their castes and tribes, free will scares the hell out of them. Religion peddlers already new that for thousands of years, and Milgram proved it.

    2. There is no excuse for libertarians to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary this year.

      Entertainment. I want to keep it going.

      Pants shitting is no end of fun.

  18. Please. Crossover appeal? Let’s see where Trump has crossover appeal on these issues:

    1. Wants expanded proliferation of guns, and thinks the 2nd amendment is under attack.

    2. Would eliminate Dept. of Education.

    3. Would eliminate EPA.

    4. Thinks climate change is a hoax.

    5. Would reduce taxes, and once said a corporate tax rate of 0 is a good idea.

    6. Would repeal Obamacare.

    Six ways (more than 3) Trump has crossover appeal to….you, Ed. And libertarians.

    1. Yeah, I’m gonna need some actual evidence that Trump gives a shit about the 2A, or has any interest in eliminating the DoE or EPA. Something beyond a throwaway line at one of his rallies.

      1. We need actual evidence Trump cares or is consistent on any issue, including Ed’s 3. Which really is my point. Stop warning Democrats about crossover when your own group might even have more to be concerned about.

        1. The LP? I think we are safe from Trump.

      2. Or happy about, depending on how you look at it.

    2. At least 1, 3, 4, and 6 are just fine with your average UAW member.

      1. I doubt any of them would shed any tears if the DOE was dissolved, either.

        1. But…but….the childruhhhhhhhn!

        2. I’d be fine if just ONE of the DOE’s was dissolved.

    3. When you put it that way he doesn’t look that bad…

      1. I’m sure he has room in his tent for libertarians, Sarc.

        1. I was being sarcastic. The man is a buffoon, and there is no way I could vote for him. In 2008 I let myself be persuaded into voting for one of the major candidates, and I felt soiled afterwards. Not doing that again.

          1. Good. But you yourself must admit that he seems to be gaining some support among the commentariat here at Reason.

            1. I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

            2. The support generally falls into the category of “if we must have entropy, at least let’s have a little more honesty with it for a change.”

              Trump and Sanders have been more consistent in their policy stances than Clinton and Cruz. All four are only capable of taking pig-ignorant stances, but at least with Trump and Sanders their consistency is useful for one’s personal and business planning purposes. For example: Trump will not steal my 401k, Sanders most certainly will. Clinton and Cruz I can’t tell. For planning purposes, I can deal with Sanders stealing it as I can plan accordingly.

              1. Clinton will steal your 401(k) and give it to Wall Street bankers.

            3. “…you must admit…”

              Every time I hear that phrase I know it is going to be followed by a load of horseshit.

              1. You must admit you always make cogent points.

  19. This is what I am beginning to worry about: How long ’til somebody takes a shot at the Trumpster?

    I read Sally Kohn’s CNN piece a little while ago, and she is practically begging somebody to save her from the Fourth Reich. There’s a ton of it going around.

    1. Repugnant as I find Trump himself, I’d be lying if I said that I don’t enjoy the hysterics he seems to elicit from people like Sally Kohn.

    2. Why does Sally Kohn even have a job? Her articles are so over the top. CNN has really gone down hill

      1. You’re assuming they had a hill to go down in the first place.

        1. Haha true. and the media wonders why they aren’t taken seriously. do you think she is that stupid or is a troll for hits? probably both imo

    3. This is what I am beginning to worry about: How long ’til somebody takes a shot at the Trumpster?

      Based on the historical record, America’s civil and economic liberties have been noticeably declining once the presidents stopped getting shot. So the POTUS getting shot is way down on my list of worries.

  20. Whites still make up over 2/3 of voters. The Democrats are campaigning for the demographics of 2030. Between their pandering to BLM, push for amnesty which a majority of Americans (wrongfully) oppose, and Sanders’ “White people don’t know what it’s like to be poor” comment, they are going to lose the white vote by historic margins. Trump will be hammering away at Hillary’s hawkish record and flip flops on social issues. I really do think Trump will beat Hillary in the general, barring a third party surprise. She will have landslides in the liberal coast states and may win the popular vote, but Trump will win all the battleground states.

    1. You’re delusional and apparently have not glanced at the polls. Trump is politically radioactive. Independents hate him.

  21. But you yourself must admit that he seems to be gaining some support among the commentariat here at Reason.

    Trump has undeniable utility as a sharp stick to poke you in the eye with.

    1. he seems to be gaining some support among the commentariat here at Reason

      I think this confuses scorn for many of the people attacking Trump and their unprincipled views, with support for Trump.

      1. I support Trump. For the entertainment value.

        I want the pants shitting to continue as long as possible.

  22. That trend toward the creation of out-groups?immigrants, Muslims, the rich, and other internal and external groupings based on race, class, gender, or whatever else?is the frothy mix out of which Donald Trump has emerged.

    Nice metaphor. Not sure if it was on purpose or not, but I see what you did there:

    Donald Trump is the santorum of modern American politics, which is basically the two TEAMS taking turns anally hate fucking the rest of us.

  23. And just today, Freedom Partners (Kochs) put out a video lusting two points that they like Sanders on: corporate welfare and the import/export bank. I’m sure if they tried they could have come up with one more to counter your three.

    Hey, it’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world…for sure.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..ers-220498

    1. *listing. But maybe lusting.

    2. A broken clock may be right twice a day but it’s still broken.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.