(02-24-2018 02:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  I think the best and most succinct explanation I have heard (I now forget where) to explain why evangelical Christians continued to give their votes to the Republican candidate (as they usually do) despite his myriad flaws is that it was an act of self-defense. Clinton and the Democratic platform/agenda were perceived (not without reason, I might add) as actively hostile to the issues evangelicals care about. And, well, if you're under imminent attack, you use whatever is close at hand to neutralize the threat, and you sort the consequences - and misgivings - out later.

Democrats have difficulty understanding how many, many people of good will on the other side could have viewed their task as trying to choose the lesser of two evils, because Democrats only saw one evil on the ballot. For large parts of this country, there were two. FWIW, this Christian Republican personally did find both options highly unfit to be president, and voted for neither, but then again I had the luxury (if you can call it that) of living in a noncompetitive state. I don't find votes for Trump made by those who felt they had to in order to prevent Clinton from becoming president to be immoral or a betrayal of principles. I know lots of Trump voters (along with abstainers like myself) who, while happy Clinton didn't win, are critical of Trump. I think it's quite significant that his approval rating has always been well under water from day one, which wouldn't be the case without significant "support," i.e., disapproval, from people who nevertheless voted for him.

None of this is to excuse the pro-Trump cheerleading, sucking up to power, and glossing over of defects displayed by some evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham and whoever else. That I do find revolting and a betrayal of principles.

Thanks, this is the most satisfying (if that's the right term) explanation I've read. And certainly this was not the first unsavory alliance in US politics. I will be curious to see if the new developments since the election affect things. (Stormy Daniels, the playmate, the hush money, the Roy Moore accusations, etc.) The incident with Mona Charen at CPAC was surprising to me.

(02-24-2018 02:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for the racism charge, I'm not inclined to do any water carrying for Trump but Democrats have essentially yelled "racist"" at every Republican candidate, proposal, statement, etc. for the last 20+ years. A racist used to be someone who irrationally felt others were inferior. Now it means someone who wants a slightly lesser percentage growth in entitlement spending, or favors enforcement of existing immigration laws that were passed with bipartisan support, or a white person who makes inauthentic tacos for dinner, or whatever. The left has cried wolf on this issue for so long and so loudly that I'll forgive people who tune them out when they say this time there really is a wolf at the door. Trump, a lifelong Manhattan Democrat and big Democrat donor until about fifteen minutes ago relatively speaking, and who has appointed people of color in his administration, does not strike me as a "racist" as I and lots of other people would sensibly define that term. Democrats are free to disagree but this is not some objective moral fact that they get to cudgel other people for supposedly immorally ignoring. He strikes me as insensitive, not tactful, overbroad, coarse, and all sorts of other things, but the fact is that any Republican who is the opposite of those things (Mitt Romney?) would also be and has been called "racist."

As for the primaries, Trump no doubt attracted some unsavory voters but I'm sure the Democrats always get the Communist vote as well. He rarely won majorities in the primaries, meaning most people voted "other than Trump." But you can win a tennis match without winning a majority of the points and you can apparently win a 17-way primary while hardly ever being anyone's first choice.

I think there's a very real disconnect between Rs and Ds on views of race in this country. (How's that for stating the obvious?) To the point that I think often both sides are being sincere even though they each think the other is being disingenuous. Anyway, that's a discussion that probably deserves its own thread.

Romney's a good example of someone who you can make a case was unfairly accused of racism. But that's part of why his takedown of Trump's racism is so powerful. I can accept that Republicans think Dems are too quick to charge racism. But why have so many *Republicans* accused Trump of racism? Or more to the point, why won't the other Republicans take their charges seriously? Romney was the previous nominee. It's like if Obama said Clinton was not fit to be president. Or perhaps more like if Kerry had said Obama wasn't fit.

As much a rhetorical question as anything...