(02-18-2018 09:11 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  They had umpteen choices for a ® nominee and chose the most morally bankrupt one. No way Jesus would cast a vote for the man.

When they had umpteen choices, they voted for one of the others. When it came down to Trump or Hillary, they voted for what they believed to be the lesser evil.

Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

Yep. I'd choose Trump over Hillary all over again and twice on Sunday.

What the Democrats seem still unable to realize is that Trump being president is easily as much their fault as the Republicans. I mean, THEY chose to all but coronate about the most unlikeable, sleazy candidate they could........and then throw a fit when the American people reject their sh!tty choice. Duh.

Yeah, I don't think they'll make that mistake again, but who knows? Mistakes are what politicians do.

As JMUDunk said, I never saw Trump winning the nomination, much less the general election. Then I looked at the weakness of the Republican field, plus the populist nature of Trump's campaign and thought he had a shot. Figuring HRC would win the Democratic nomination, I assumed Trump's weaknesses, combined with the natural demographic disadvantage Republicans start with, should provide an easy win for Hillary.

But make no mistake, it took a strange set of circumstances to elect Trump last time -- a monumentally bad Democrat, a less than stellar Republican primary field and a voting public ready to oust almost all of Washington. In spite of what you may read on political message boards, Trump is incredibly unpopular, even among populations that voted for him over HRC. I can tell you that Trump carried my area of Mississippi in a landslide, but there is no love for the man himself, and any competent alternative is likely to beat him in a reelection effort.

Well, to be clear on my end- I never said or would say “weak field”. I’d actually argue quite the opposite.

Take Trump off the stage and out of the entire thing, you’ve got a vast array of very impressive resumes, careers, titles, educations, backgrounds, legacies, name recog etc.

I just don’t know which one coulda thumped the Clinton machine. Can’t really envision any of them winning the General.

Took someone completely out of the box. That’s precisely what we got...

Our schittalker in Chief.

(02-18-2018 01:40 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

I don’t think so.

She could have won by 10 million votes across California, New York, and Illinois but the truth is that she got crushed in the vote that counted—the electoral college.

It was really an ass whipping and the Dems could be seen as a regional, or urban, only party. No Dem appeals to the wide stretch of Americans.

“Crushed”. “Ass-whipping”. Donald is that you?

Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

It was s beat down based on the expectations game. You remember MUH NATE!!! And 99.7%?

The impending “landslide” etc? The faux glass ceiling to come down and rented fireworks? (Which, incidentally, Trump offered to take off her hands for 20 cents on the dollar...lol), electorally, this was an asss whippin’. He won states the GOP hasn’t carried in a generation +.

She campaigned in California, New York and a few others, and was awarded those electoral votes.

She LOST 30 of 50 races, that’s 60%. Asswhippin.


Oh, and for the most part, he had no “Team”. I guess his Trumpforce one pilots and crew, Bannon, a few select others and, mainly, family. Clinton OWNED the DNC and had everything and everyone imaginable rigged in her favor.

Good news is the collective wisdom of the American people saw right through it all.

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:57 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:40 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

I think when a AA baseball team beats a major league franchise by *1* run, it's a beat down.

Idk I guess that’s just a semantics argument. I’d call it a major upset and an embarrassment for the MLB franchise, but a beat down has always meant a blowout/complete domination to me.

The only real way it was MLB vs AA was in political experience of the candidate. And even then, I’d say it was like a 70 year old former MLB player with bad knees playing against a 20 year old with natural athletic talent who had never played baseball before. They both had big league teams and backers running the campaign.

The Trump campaign vs the Clinton campaign was an all time beat down, no doubt. One gets an A, one gets an F.

I just don’t think anyone can argue Trump the candidate beat Hillary the candidate in a blow out or “ass whipping”. It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Lol. To the last sentence.

Fair enough!

I’d still choose the turd sammich, given those choices...

(02-18-2018 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 03:24 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Pretty much. So why did it come down to that?

Democrats messed up big time by christening Hillary years before the election. That was a self inflicted wound. It was “her turn” so she was coronated, and shame on Democrats for that. I hope for a much larger field of candidates in 2020.
On the Republican side it was just the perfect storm to nominate Trump. The vote was split and fractured so much, and that was the only way he could win. A lot of fellow Democrats will say it was a weak field, but I disagree. There were a lot of average to good (but no great) candidates, and they covered all spectrums of the party. Heck, I would have definitely voted for Kasich or Paul over Hillary, and would have seriously considered Rubio.

I still think Priebus screwed the pooch with the way the debates were set up. You had all the candidates before all the liberal newspeople who knew that they wanted Hillary to win, and that the best way to do that was to sew hate and discontent among republicans. So they ran the early debates like reality shows, and Trump thrived in that environment. By the time people realized it was out of control, Trump had too much momentum. The left wing media were happy, because they figured it would be too easy to portray Trump as unhinged and hand the election to Hillary. I must admit, I thought the same myself. But instead of the republican that it would be easiest to beat, Trump turned out to have been maybe the only republican who could beat Hillary, because he could tap into a populist stream that Jeb or Rubio or Cruz or Romney couldn't touch. The efforts to portray Trump as unhinged have continued, but he's still there.

I would hope republicans display far more sense next time they go through primaries.

Great post.

(02-18-2018 04:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 07:31 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  They had umpteen choices for a ® nominee and chose the most morally bankrupt one. No way Jesus would cast a vote for the man.

When they had umpteen choices, they voted for one of the others. When it came down to Trump or Hillary, they voted for what they believed to be the lesser evil.

Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

I didn't get him either at first. But when he kept getting votes and I saw who was voting for him, then it was obvious what was going on. At least to normal people, not media people in their bubble. It was the Reagan Democrats, the blue collar workers, who were strongly backing him. The other 21 candidates mostly ignored them as had both parties for 30 years.

Yup.

All playing to this “group” or that group, regardless the stupidity of what their “cause” is/was.

Some just weren’t ready for prime time, I’d put Rubio on top of that heap. I took my kids to his rally here, very well attended, all dorned out with flags, the bunting the fake pre-made signs, etc.

His speech was God awful. Tried to out Trump, Trump- that ain hapnin. All the stupid tiny hands comments, appearance jokes etc.,

Came off more HS girls mean club than presidential campaign. People walking to their cars within 5-10 minutes...

Get a bottle of H2O, Marco, seems you need it...

16 others, most not even “contenders”, beat em all like a drum.

A fascinating study for someone.

Yeah, politically I was closer to Rubio than Cruz, but I voted for Cruz in the primary. I didn't think Rubio was particularly competent. And I was closer to Kasich too, but that guy is truly nuts. Not quite Hillary level, but he is pretty bad. What person would think a convention full of Cruz and Trump supporters would turn to him if deadlocked? That takes almost Hillary level delusion. And his sole strategy in the race was to try to undermine the other more moderate candidates.

(02-18-2018 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 03:24 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:58 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  It was a turd sandwich narrowly edging out a giant douche.

Pretty much. So why did it come down to that?

Democrats messed up big time by christening Hillary years before the election. That was a self inflicted wound. It was “her turn” so she was coronated, and shame on Democrats for that. I hope for a much larger field of candidates in 2020.
On the Republican side it was just the perfect storm to nominate Trump. The vote was split and fractured so much, and that was the only way he could win. A lot of fellow Democrats will say it was a weak field, but I disagree. There were a lot of average to good (but no great) candidates, and they covered all spectrums of the party. Heck, I would have definitely voted for Kasich or Paul over Hillary, and would have seriously considered Rubio.

I still think Priebus screwed the pooch with the way the debates were set up. You had all the candidates before all the liberal newspeople who knew that they wanted Hillary to win, and that the best way to do that was to sew hate and discontent among republicans. So they ran the early debates like reality shows, and Trump thrived in that environment. By the time people realized it was out of control, Trump had too much momentum. The left wing media were happy, because they figured it would be too easy to portray Trump as unhinged and hand the election to Hillary. I must admit, I thought the same myself. But instead of the republican that it would be easiest to beat, Trump turned out to have been maybe the only republican who could beat Hillary, because he could tap into a populist stream that Jeb or Rubio or Cruz or Romney couldn't touch. The efforts to portray Trump as unhinged have continued, but he's still there.

I would hope republicans display far more sense next time they go through primaries.

The Republican candidate next time should absolutely refuse to allow ABC, NBC or CNN to be involved in moderating. CNN cheated for Hillary vs. Bernie. NBC's Holt was texting Podesta saying how he had stuck it to Trump. ABC has had moderators arguing the Democratic points in 2 straight elections-and this time they stated as fact something that was false. Let it be CBS and Fox.

(02-18-2018 01:40 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:00 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Impossible to have a realistic conversation about this at this point in time. Since we don't have an obvious democratic candidate to judge Trump against.
Keep in mind, despite some revisionists on here, Trump lost to the sleaziest democratic opponent imaginable in the popular vote. That can't be ignored. 2 million more people in this country voted for Hillary! Had the dems fielded almost anyone in the country other than Hillary we'd have a dem in the oval office right now.
The dems are the only ones who can beat the dems. If next election plays out as sleazily as the last, even I might vote for the repub.

I don’t think so.

She could have won by 10 million votes across California, New York, and Illinois but the truth is that she got crushed in the vote that counted—the electoral college.

It was really an ass whipping and the Dems could be seen as a regional, or urban, only party. No Dem appeals to the wide stretch of Americans.

“Crushed”. “Ass-whipping”. Donald is that you?

Clinton sucked as a candidate, no doubt. Trumps campaign completely outplayed hers, no doubt. Give me a break though with this nonsense trying to portray it as some kind of epic beat down . 80,000 votes out of 12.5 million in 3 states was the difference.

A win is a win, but it wasn’t a beat down by any means. One crap candidate beat another crap candidate because his team was better then hers.

A real beatdown would have happened if someone like Kasich or Rubio ran against Clinton. Or Biden ran against Trump.

304-227

Am an evangelical and charismatic Christian, and did not support and not envision a Trump nomination until he had it. But what liberais never get, is that my allegiance is not to a mortal human being, but an immortal Trinity. Liberals and especially progressives make a leader into their god to fill a spiritual void,, like they did with Obama, and that is why the MSM gave him so much respect and honor and did not do their job as journalists because Obama was a god to them much as Kim is a god to the North Koreans.

The MSM playbook is almost entirely anti-Christ, so someone they so fervently oppose like Trump, regardless of his imperfections, is bound to have higher purpose that the MSM is so clueless about.

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 09:11 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When they had umpteen choices, they voted for one of the others. When it came down to Trump or Hillary, they voted for what they believed to be the lesser evil.

Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

Yep. I'd choose Trump over Hillary all over again and twice on Sunday.

What the Democrats seem still unable to realize is that Trump being president is easily as much their fault as the Republicans. I mean, THEY chose to all but coronate about the most unlikeable, sleazy candidate they could........and then throw a fit when the American people reject their sh!tty choice. Duh.

Yeah, I don't think they'll make that mistake again, but who knows? Mistakes are what politicians do.

As JMUDunk said, I never saw Trump winning the nomination, much less the general election. Then I looked at the weakness of the Republican field, plus the populist nature of Trump's campaign and thought he had a shot. Figuring HRC would win the Democratic nomination, I assumed Trump's weaknesses, combined with the natural demographic disadvantage Republicans start with, should provide an easy win for Hillary.

But make no mistake, it took a strange set of circumstances to elect Trump last time -- a monumentally bad Democrat, a less than stellar Republican primary field and a voting public ready to oust almost all of Washington. In spite of what you may read on political message boards, Trump is incredibly unpopular, even among populations that voted for him over HRC. I can tell you that Trump carried my area of Mississippi in a landslide, but there is no love for the man himself, and any competent alternative is likely to beat him in a reelection effort.

Well, to be clear on my end- I never said or would say “weak field”. I’d actually argue quite the opposite.

Take Trump off the stage and out of the entire thing, you’ve got a vast array of very impressive resumes, careers, titles, educations, backgrounds, legacies, name recog etc.

I just don’t know which one coulda thumped the Clinton machine. Can’t really envision any of them winning the General.

Took someone completely out of the box. That’s precisely what we got...

Our schittalker in Chief.

Actually, I never said that you said it was a weak field. I thought it was worthwhile to acknowledge that you didn't initially feel that Trump could win the nomination, then I preceded with my own thoughts.

As I saw it, the field had the resumes, etc. but they all had glaring weaknesses that were either inherent in their campaigns or exposed in the primary process. With the huge field, some of the better candidates couldn't get their message out and never generated any buzz with their candidacies. At the debates, Trump pretty much sucked all of the air out of the room and the media focused on him and his comments about the other candidates. It was a masterstroke of political gamesmanship. Recall the reactions of Bush, Rubio and others when met with some of Trumps comments about them. They should have just walked off the stage, because they were done.

While I believe the media was partially responsible, some candidates didn't seem to have a coherent message that was relatable to the American public. It was the primary season, so they should be talking to Republicans, but a presidential candidate should try to win the primaries while keeping an eye on the general election. Only a few seemed to recognize that. Candidates that may have popularity among the GOP faithful might have little chance in garnering crossover votes from traditional Democratic voters. Guys like Huckabee, for example, would have zero chance in the general election, so all he did was take time and media exposure away from credible candidates.

Back to the thread topic, I believe evangelicals have soured on Trump to a large degree. They were willing to give him a chance and hoped his policy choices could overcome shortcomings in character. I just think there is becoming something of a fatigue from the mounds of reports of sexual improprieties, which have been piled on other questionable statements/actions. His twitter nonsense hasn't helped him and, contrary to a comment earlier in the thread, he hasn't slowed down with the crazy tweets, as evidenced by this weekend's tirade.

He has three years to turn it around or seal his fate as a one term president. But if the conversations I am having with Southern Baptists in south Mississippi are any indication, he has work to do to regain their trust and support for another term. Some of those who couldn't stand Hillary and strongly supported Trump to beat her have expressed to me that they can't envision voting for him again. Take it for what it's worth.

(02-18-2018 11:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Am an evangelical and charismatic Christian, and did not support and not envision a Trump nomination until he had it. But what liberais never get, is that my allegiance is not to a mortal human being, but an immortal Trinity. Liberals and especially progressives make a leader into their god to fill a spiritual void,, like they did with Obama, and that is why the MSM gave him so much respect and honor and did not do their job as journalists because Obama was a god to them much as Kim is a god to the North Koreans.

The MSM playbook is almost entirely anti-Christ, so someone they so fervently oppose like Trump, regardless of his imperfections, is bound to have higher purpose that the MSM is so clueless about.

best post of the thread

(02-19-2018 12:46 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 09:11 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

Yep. I'd choose Trump over Hillary all over again and twice on Sunday.

What the Democrats seem still unable to realize is that Trump being president is easily as much their fault as the Republicans. I mean, THEY chose to all but coronate about the most unlikeable, sleazy candidate they could........and then throw a fit when the American people reject their sh!tty choice. Duh.

Yeah, I don't think they'll make that mistake again, but who knows? Mistakes are what politicians do.

As JMUDunk said, I never saw Trump winning the nomination, much less the general election. Then I looked at the weakness of the Republican field, plus the populist nature of Trump's campaign and thought he had a shot. Figuring HRC would win the Democratic nomination, I assumed Trump's weaknesses, combined with the natural demographic disadvantage Republicans start with, should provide an easy win for Hillary.

But make no mistake, it took a strange set of circumstances to elect Trump last time -- a monumentally bad Democrat, a less than stellar Republican primary field and a voting public ready to oust almost all of Washington. In spite of what you may read on political message boards, Trump is incredibly unpopular, even among populations that voted for him over HRC. I can tell you that Trump carried my area of Mississippi in a landslide, but there is no love for the man himself, and any competent alternative is likely to beat him in a reelection effort.

Well, to be clear on my end- I never said or would say “weak field”. I’d actually argue quite the opposite.

Take Trump off the stage and out of the entire thing, you’ve got a vast array of very impressive resumes, careers, titles, educations, backgrounds, legacies, name recog etc.

I just don’t know which one coulda thumped the Clinton machine. Can’t really envision any of them winning the General.

Took someone completely out of the box. That’s precisely what we got...

Our schittalker in Chief.

Actually, I never said that you said it was a weak field. I thought it was worthwhile to acknowledge that you didn't initially feel that Trump could win the nomination, then I preceded with my own thoughts.

As I saw it, the field had the resumes, etc. but they all had glaring weaknesses that were either inherent in their campaigns or exposed in the primary process. With the huge field, some of the better candidates couldn't get their message out and never generated any buzz with their candidacies. At the debates, Trump pretty much sucked all of the air out of the room and the media focused on him and his comments about the other candidates. It was a masterstroke of political gamesmanship. Recall the reactions of Bush, Rubio and others when met with some of Trumps comments about them. They should have just walked off the stage, because they were done.

While I believe the media was partially responsible, some candidates didn't seem to have a coherent message that was relatable to the American public. It was the primary season, so they should be talking to Republicans, but a presidential candidate should try to win the primaries while keeping an eye on the general election. Only a few seemed to recognize that. Candidates that may have popularity among the GOP faithful might have little chance in garnering crossover votes from traditional Democratic voters. Guys like Huckabee, for example, would have zero chance in the general election, so all he did was take time and media exposure away from credible candidates.

Back to the thread topic, I believe evangelicals have soured on Trump to a large degree. They were willing to give him a chance and hoped his policy choices could overcome shortcomings in character. I just think there is becoming something of a fatigue from the mounds of reports of sexual improprieties, which have been piled on other questionable statements/actions. His twitter nonsense hasn't helped him and, contrary to a comment earlier in the thread, he hasn't slowed down with the crazy tweets, as evidenced by this weekend's tirade.

He has three years to turn it around or seal his fate as a one term president. But if the conversations I am having with Southern Baptists in south Mississippi are any indication, he has work to do to regain their trust and support for another term. Some of those who couldn't stand Hillary and strongly supported Trump to beat her have expressed to me that they can't envision voting for him again. Take it for what it's worth.

Fair nuf.

Time will tell.

As I’ve said a couple times in here, he was about #12 on my wish list of ‘16.

But, when the General came around?

What other choice was there? Easy Peasy for me.

(02-19-2018 05:01 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 12:46 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 09:11 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Yep. I'd choose Trump over Hillary all over again and twice on Sunday.

What the Democrats seem still unable to realize is that Trump being president is easily as much their fault as the Republicans. I mean, THEY chose to all but coronate about the most unlikeable, sleazy candidate they could........and then throw a fit when the American people reject their sh!tty choice. Duh.

Yeah, I don't think they'll make that mistake again, but who knows? Mistakes are what politicians do.

As JMUDunk said, I never saw Trump winning the nomination, much less the general election. Then I looked at the weakness of the Republican field, plus the populist nature of Trump's campaign and thought he had a shot. Figuring HRC would win the Democratic nomination, I assumed Trump's weaknesses, combined with the natural demographic disadvantage Republicans start with, should provide an easy win for Hillary.

But make no mistake, it took a strange set of circumstances to elect Trump last time -- a monumentally bad Democrat, a less than stellar Republican primary field and a voting public ready to oust almost all of Washington. In spite of what you may read on political message boards, Trump is incredibly unpopular, even among populations that voted for him over HRC. I can tell you that Trump carried my area of Mississippi in a landslide, but there is no love for the man himself, and any competent alternative is likely to beat him in a reelection effort.

Well, to be clear on my end- I never said or would say “weak field”. I’d actually argue quite the opposite.

Take Trump off the stage and out of the entire thing, you’ve got a vast array of very impressive resumes, careers, titles, educations, backgrounds, legacies, name recog etc.

I just don’t know which one coulda thumped the Clinton machine. Can’t really envision any of them winning the General.

Took someone completely out of the box. That’s precisely what we got...

Our schittalker in Chief.

Actually, I never said that you said it was a weak field. I thought it was worthwhile to acknowledge that you didn't initially feel that Trump could win the nomination, then I preceded with my own thoughts.

As I saw it, the field had the resumes, etc. but they all had glaring weaknesses that were either inherent in their campaigns or exposed in the primary process. With the huge field, some of the better candidates couldn't get their message out and never generated any buzz with their candidacies. At the debates, Trump pretty much sucked all of the air out of the room and the media focused on him and his comments about the other candidates. It was a masterstroke of political gamesmanship. Recall the reactions of Bush, Rubio and others when met with some of Trumps comments about them. They should have just walked off the stage, because they were done.

While I believe the media was partially responsible, some candidates didn't seem to have a coherent message that was relatable to the American public. It was the primary season, so they should be talking to Republicans, but a presidential candidate should try to win the primaries while keeping an eye on the general election. Only a few seemed to recognize that. Candidates that may have popularity among the GOP faithful might have little chance in garnering crossover votes from traditional Democratic voters. Guys like Huckabee, for example, would have zero chance in the general election, so all he did was take time and media exposure away from credible candidates.

Back to the thread topic, I believe evangelicals have soured on Trump to a large degree. They were willing to give him a chance and hoped his policy choices could overcome shortcomings in character. I just think there is becoming something of a fatigue from the mounds of reports of sexual improprieties, which have been piled on other questionable statements/actions. His twitter nonsense hasn't helped him and, contrary to a comment earlier in the thread, he hasn't slowed down with the crazy tweets, as evidenced by this weekend's tirade.

He has three years to turn it around or seal his fate as a one term president. But if the conversations I am having with Southern Baptists in south Mississippi are any indication, he has work to do to regain their trust and support for another term. Some of those who couldn't stand Hillary and strongly supported Trump to beat her have expressed to me that they can't envision voting for him again. Take it for what it's worth.

Fair nuf.

Time will tell.

As I’ve said a couple times in here, he was about #12 on my wish list of ‘16.

But, when the General came around?

What other choice was there? Easy Peasy for me.

The Socialist Democrat Party platform is to the left of the devil himself now. If they don't break from their nutcase base Trumps only real challenger would come from an establishment never Trumper in his on primary, and I think the new Republican base wants no part of the old party.

(02-19-2018 12:46 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 09:11 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yup.

which interestingly will be studied for decades as to how a vast and varied field of career or semi-career pols all fell short to an outsider, newcomer.

I've been arguing politics (politely for the most part) since around 3rd grade, 1974, then Ford/Carter, I guess, with my friend Tom. Got a pretty good schooling on the topics and foundations after 7 years of "Higher Ed" as well.

Worked in, on, outside many campaigns since then, including Bubba's, W's and varied others, local and national.

NEVER seen this coming, til I watched a confluence of what took place.

First road sign was the Brexit vote. WHAT?!? They voted for what? Soon as I heard/read that, early Summer '16 I think, I thought damn. This may well be Ross Perot writ large.

This rather crazy, gold leafed, orange-haired orangutan may have a real shot. Ann Coulter called it right out of the box. Bully on her.

I've got no "love" (OP) for the guy, but he's a DAMN choice cut above what we were otherwise offered.

Vote for him over Her> again tomorrow...

Yep. I'd choose Trump over Hillary all over again and twice on Sunday.

What the Democrats seem still unable to realize is that Trump being president is easily as much their fault as the Republicans. I mean, THEY chose to all but coronate about the most unlikeable, sleazy candidate they could........and then throw a fit when the American people reject their sh!tty choice. Duh.

Yeah, I don't think they'll make that mistake again, but who knows? Mistakes are what politicians do.

As JMUDunk said, I never saw Trump winning the nomination, much less the general election. Then I looked at the weakness of the Republican field, plus the populist nature of Trump's campaign and thought he had a shot. Figuring HRC would win the Democratic nomination, I assumed Trump's weaknesses, combined with the natural demographic disadvantage Republicans start with, should provide an easy win for Hillary.

But make no mistake, it took a strange set of circumstances to elect Trump last time -- a monumentally bad Democrat, a less than stellar Republican primary field and a voting public ready to oust almost all of Washington. In spite of what you may read on political message boards, Trump is incredibly unpopular, even among populations that voted for him over HRC. I can tell you that Trump carried my area of Mississippi in a landslide, but there is no love for the man himself, and any competent alternative is likely to beat him in a reelection effort.

Well, to be clear on my end- I never said or would say “weak field”. I’d actually argue quite the opposite.

Take Trump off the stage and out of the entire thing, you’ve got a vast array of very impressive resumes, careers, titles, educations, backgrounds, legacies, name recog etc.

I just don’t know which one coulda thumped the Clinton machine. Can’t really envision any of them winning the General.

Took someone completely out of the box. That’s precisely what we got...

Our schittalker in Chief.

Actually, I never said that you said it was a weak field. I thought it was worthwhile to acknowledge that you didn't initially feel that Trump could win the nomination, then I preceded with my own thoughts.

As I saw it, the field had the resumes, etc. but they all had glaring weaknesses that were either inherent in their campaigns or exposed in the primary process. With the huge field, some of the better candidates couldn't get their message out and never generated any buzz with their candidacies. At the debates, Trump pretty much sucked all of the air out of the room and the media focused on him and his comments about the other candidates. It was a masterstroke of political gamesmanship. Recall the reactions of Bush, Rubio and others when met with some of Trumps comments about them. They should have just walked off the stage, because they were done.

While I believe the media was partially responsible, some candidates didn't seem to have a coherent message that was relatable to the American public. It was the primary season, so they should be talking to Republicans, but a presidential candidate should try to win the primaries while keeping an eye on the general election. Only a few seemed to recognize that. Candidates that may have popularity among the GOP faithful might have little chance in garnering crossover votes from traditional Democratic voters. Guys like Huckabee, for example, would have zero chance in the general election, so all he did was take time and media exposure away from credible candidates.

Back to the thread topic, I believe evangelicals have soured on Trump to a large degree. They were willing to give him a chance and hoped his policy choices could overcome shortcomings in character. I just think there is becoming something of a fatigue from the mounds of reports of sexual improprieties, which have been piled on other questionable statements/actions. His twitter nonsense hasn't helped him and, contrary to a comment earlier in the thread, he hasn't slowed down with the crazy tweets, as evidenced by this weekend's tirade.

He has three years to turn it around or seal his fate as a one term president. But if the conversations I am having with Southern Baptists in south Mississippi are any indication, he has work to do to regain their trust and support for another term. Some of those who couldn't stand Hillary and strongly supported Trump to beat her have expressed to me that they can't envision voting for him again. Take it for what it's worth.

You may be correct and the evangelicals refuse to back Trump, and it's likely that some will.

One thing I wonder though is that the MSM has taken the Trump bashing to a level, some true stuff - a lot not, that I know plenty of folks that have just "turned off" the MSM and assume whatever they say next is as likely a lie or distortion as it is truth.........the old crying wolf so often that they become like background noise.

I mean consider, they've bashed him for eating 2 scoops of ice cream. How much of that does it take for people to just "tune out the noise"??