I thought this discussion should be separate because it is futuristic.

So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

Now, if you don't believe the polls, I guess it doesn't matter. However, I think the lead is being buried due to lawsuits and the such at the top of the ticket.

If the GOP can saddle what Trump has done in this election, doesn't the house come into play in 22 or is it too gerrymandered?

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

(11-04-2020 02:14 PM)fsquid Wrote:  If the GOP can saddle what Trump has done in this election, doesn't the house come into play in 22 or is it too gerrymandered?

At least in my state (Ohio), the house may be de-gerrymandered which would actually hurt the GOP (at the moment, 12/16 seats are GOP in a state where the Republican candidate for president only carried 4% over a majority). One of the most gerrymandered states in the Union and the Ohio SC races allowed for more Dems to be in the room.

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

I could honestly see this be the start of a split to a four party system Radical Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Trumpism.

(11-04-2020 02:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

I could honestly see this be the start of a split to a four party system Radical Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Trumpism.

Whatever "Trumpism" is supposed to be it's moderate right.

Lower taxes, border security, protectionist trade policies, law and order, mostly ignoring social issues.

The only thing not "moderate" about Trump is his Twitter account, but that personality, not policy. Trumps actual policies are Center-right. The Media (MSM and Social) have teamed up with the Dems to paint him as a borderline dictator but his actual polies are nothing of the sort.

(11-04-2020 02:32 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

I could honestly see this be the start of a split to a four party system Radical Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Trumpism.

Whatever "Trumpism" is supposed to be it's moderate right.

Lower taxes, border security, protectionist trade policies, law and order, mostly ignoring social issues.

The only thing not "moderate" about Trump is his Twitter account, but that personality, not policy. Trumps actual policies are Center-right. The Media (MSM and Social) have teamed up with the Dems to paint him as a borderline dictator but his actual polies are nothing of the sort.

I get it (and agree with your assessment), but I'm telling you, as was stated above, that Trump captured a lot of voters that the traditional Republicans couldn't...I'm saying that those voters likely won't just wander back into the GOP after this and would be able to be captured by a Trump-like Candidate/Party that could essentially splinter off from the traditional GOP after this. I'm thinking there will be a lot of Moderate-Right "No Comment"-ers who distance themselves from Trump if the election plays out to a Trump loss, and that would again disenfranchise those voters. Whether it is the boisterous nature or something more ideological, I could easily see that bloc trying to do the same thing that the Tea Party attempted to do.

Ideally, you would have the Bernie Bros, Traditional Dems, Traditional Reps, and Trump-Only voters (yes, "Trumpism" was a bad way to characterize that bloc).

(11-04-2020 02:37 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:32 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

I could honestly see this be the start of a split to a four party system Radical Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Trumpism.

Whatever "Trumpism" is supposed to be it's moderate right.

Lower taxes, border security, protectionist trade policies, law and order, mostly ignoring social issues.

The only thing not "moderate" about Trump is his Twitter account, but that personality, not policy. Trumps actual policies are Center-right. The Media (MSM and Social) have teamed up with the Dems to paint him as a borderline dictator but his actual polies are nothing of the sort.

I get it (and agree with your assessment), but I'm telling you, as was stated above, that Trump captured a lot of voters that the traditional Republicans couldn't...I'm saying that those voters likely won't just wander back into the GOP after this and would be able to be captured by a Trump-like Candidate/Party that could essentially splinter off from the traditional GOP after this. I'm thinking there will be a lot of Moderate-Right "No Comment"-ers who distance themselves from Trump if the election plays out to a Trump loss, and that would again disenfranchise those voters. Whether it is the boisterous nature or something more ideological, I could easily see that bloc trying to do the same thing that the Tea Party attempted to do.

Ideally, you would have the Bernie Bros, Traditional Dems, Traditional Reps, and Trump-Only voters (yes, "Trumpism" was a bad way to characterize that bloc).

I'm only saying "Trumpism" is Moderate Right. You listed it as a different variety of "Right" when it's not. "Trumpism" is to the left of the rest of the GOP, so "Trumpism" versus Conservative Right, IMHO.

(11-04-2020 02:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:37 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:32 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

I could honestly see this be the start of a split to a four party system Radical Left, Moderate Left, Moderate Right, and Trumpism.

Whatever "Trumpism" is supposed to be it's moderate right.

Lower taxes, border security, protectionist trade policies, law and order, mostly ignoring social issues.

The only thing not "moderate" about Trump is his Twitter account, but that personality, not policy. Trumps actual policies are Center-right. The Media (MSM and Social) have teamed up with the Dems to paint him as a borderline dictator but his actual polies are nothing of the sort.

I get it (and agree with your assessment), but I'm telling you, as was stated above, that Trump captured a lot of voters that the traditional Republicans couldn't...I'm saying that those voters likely won't just wander back into the GOP after this and would be able to be captured by a Trump-like Candidate/Party that could essentially splinter off from the traditional GOP after this. I'm thinking there will be a lot of Moderate-Right "No Comment"-ers who distance themselves from Trump if the election plays out to a Trump loss, and that would again disenfranchise those voters. Whether it is the boisterous nature or something more ideological, I could easily see that bloc trying to do the same thing that the Tea Party attempted to do.

Ideally, you would have the Bernie Bros, Traditional Dems, Traditional Reps, and Trump-Only voters (yes, "Trumpism" was a bad way to characterize that bloc).

I'm only saying "Trumpism" is Moderate Right. You listed it as a different variety of "Right" when it's not. "Trumpism" is to the left of the rest of the GOP, so "Trumpism" versus Conservative Right, IMHO.

Completely agree, and I corrected it to reflect parties and not ideologies.

(11-04-2020 02:58 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  I think Trump was - in a way - his own party and it'll be tough for Republicans to replicate this sort of atmosphere in the future. I do not believe the Trump voter is necessarily a Republican voter.

But since Trump's rise, politicians have to start realizing there's a populist movement happening within the United States. You're seeing it within the GOP and you're seeing it within the Democrats, and I think there's a significant crossover between both that are being overlooked.

For today, the milquetoast politician barely squeaked by, but with how things are shifting, this isn't going to be the case for long. Trump was the first glimpse of it and Biden was a dying establishment grasping back the power with its last breathe.

At this moment in US history, I think the Biden-type or Jeb-type politicians aren't long for this world and the populists...the Trump's or even AOC's of the future are going to be the ones who appeal to the masses. (And yes, while it's hard to contemplate now, don't be surprised if she wins voters that Trump did if she ever runs.)

I can see Ted Cruz moving in this direction. I don't see Pence doing it though.

John James!

(11-04-2020 03:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  John James!

He won?

(11-04-2020 03:06 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 03:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  John James!

He won?

No at least not yet but him and others like him are the future of the GOP

(11-04-2020 02:58 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  I think Trump was - in a way - his own party and it'll be tough for Republicans to replicate this sort of atmosphere in the future. I do not believe the Trump voter is necessarily a Republican voter.

But since Trump's rise, politicians have to start realizing there's a populist movement happening within the United States. You're seeing it within the GOP and you're seeing it within the Democrats, and I think there's a significant crossover population between both that's being overlooked.

For today, the milquetoast politician barely squeaked by, but with how things are shifting, this isn't going to be the case for long. Trump was the first glimpse of it and Biden was a dying establishment grasping back the power with its last breathe.

At this moment in US history, I think the Biden-type or Jeb-type politicians aren't long for this world and the populists...the Trump's or even AOC's of the future are going to be the ones who appeal to the masses. (And yes, while it's hard to contemplate now, don't be surprised if she wins voters that Trump did if she ever runs.)

Republicans could run someone with Trump's policies, but not his itchy twitter finger.

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

The Dems also did some of it. They self-imploded with non-Mexican Hispanics on the socialism ideas.

Also, W. should not have won based on the fundamentals. The economy was good. W. won in 2000 because the country didn't want any more Clinton nonsense. Republicans cannot run a Trump type personality in 2024. We aren't the same country as 2000. There is twitter and the internet and social media, but it still isn't going to be the norm. Maybe not a milque-toast candidate, but not someone who baits everyone.

(11-04-2020 02:21 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(11-04-2020 02:13 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So, the exit polls say that Trump only lost ground with white males. Doesn't this setup the GOP for some big wins in the future? If those running with a R by their name can keep up this momentum, there is a chance to really expand the party in the next decade as demographics are expected to change.

No, because the GOP didn't do it. Trump did it. If he's gone, it's all gone.

His approach was simple. He appealed to middle, middle class voters. He listened to people who had been treated as if they didn't exist by both parties for 30 years. You don't need his bombast to reach them. It was his listening that attracted them.

If Trump loses this he will run again in 2024

Why would I believe the exit polls any more than the other polls?

I saw one question, "Do you think abortion should be legal?" The answer was overwhelming "yes"... ~70/30.

But what does "yes" mean?

What is the question was phrased this way:
"Do you think abortion should be legal all 9 months through the day of birth?"

Or like this:

"Do you think abortion should only be legal in the cases of rape, incest or to protect the health of the mother?"


To ask simply if abortion should be legal you get no detail as to the breakdown of the community pulse.