Democrats Could Win Back The House Thanks to Trump Being as “Popular as Head Lice”

[CPUd]

Democrats Could Win Back The House Thanks to Trump Being as “Popular as Head Lice”

Democrats Could Win Back The House Thanks to Trump Being as “Popular as Head Lice”

By Sarah Jones on Thu, Mar 31st, 2016 at 3:18 pm

Conventional wisdom and math have long created the narrative that it would take Democrats many election cycles too overcome the Republican 30 seat majority in the House. And then along came Donald Trump.

The House is actually in play, thanks to Donald Trump, who in suburban districts is “about as popular as head lice.”

So said Jack Pitney said to USA Today. Pitney is now a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College but during a leave was the Acting Director of the Research Department of the Republican National Committee.

In other words, these are not the words of a liberal partisan: Trump is as popular as head lice. Trump will put Republicans in jeopardy, especially in suburban districts.

In the USA Today article, Erin Kelly examined the possibility by speaking with several analysts and party spokespeople. Pitney explained that the Republican Congressional candidates are in trouble because Americans are increasingly voting party-line, so they aren’t likely to vote for Clinton for President and a Republican in the House.

“That puts the Republican majority in jeopardy, especially in suburban districts, where Trump is about as popular as head lice,” Pitney said. “Trump is definitely going to cause damage for Republicans. It may not be quite enough to cost them control of the House, but he is going to make the party bleed. The only question is how much.”

...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/31/house-play-donald-trump-popular-head-lice.html

 

[nobody's_hero]

The party has been bleeding out for a while, long before Trump ever got here. The only problem with these articles is that it makes Trump a convenient scapegoat for a party that has already been suffering from a chronic brain hemorrhage due to neoconservative leadership. I'm fairly unimpressed with these articles for that reason.

However, that puts me in a difficult position. If Trump steamrolls over the neocon-backed Cruz as an alternative candidate in the primary, but fails in the general election, neoconservatives will claim that we should all have listened to them when they told us that Trump was unelectable (as if any of their horses in the races ever come in first), and in my opinion that would be a MAJOR step backwards if neocons are allowed to say, "I told you so." I see that as the worst possible outcome of 2016. Don't really much give a shit about the candidates themselves, but if the neocons tell us to bet on their horse during the primary, and we ignore them, but Trump loses in the general, Republicans will go right back to following the neocon's shitty advice for the next several elections. Of course, if Trump wins the whole thing and he's as bad as people think he is, then it will be bad for the country as a whole. Meh.

So to break it down:

A) Don't support Trump and he loses to Hillary, and risk the neocons being able to mentally whip people back onto the slave plantations in the GOP (bad for future liberty prospects in the GOP)
B) Support Trump and he beats Hillary, and give a big "F - U" to the neoconservatives after they've been collaborating with liberal media pundits in trying to say that he's unelectable (bad for the country for the 4-8 years that we'll have to suffer under Trump's presidency, but leaves an opening for a liberty candidate to rise within the GOP since the neocons will have lost even more credibility by betting against Trump ever having a chance)
C) Hillary wins regardless (bad for the country, and at best no progress will be made for the liberty faction of the GOP in terms of working within the GOP)

So yeah, at this point, Trump winning or losing in the general election has more to do with our chances at working our way up in the future GOP primaries than whether or not he is good for the country. I personally do not think that he will be good for the country, but if I see that voting for Trump results in a chance to damage neoconservative credibility in the GOP and neuter them for the purpose of succeeding in future GOP primaries, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna take it. And if the liberal media claims that Trump can't win and he actually does, well, fk their credibility too. We're better off in the future if no one believes anything coming out of their mouths.

After what they did to Ron Paul in 2008, I voted for 1 republican on the ballot and it was for a local position and left the other spots blank. The GOP essentially got no support from me that year. The GOP was dying long before Trump ever got here.

I haven't yet decided what my voting will look like this year, but I'm already certain that *if* I do decide to vote, it will be more about strategic potential than personal conviction.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Preserve the D.C. gridlock!

 

[Zippyjuan]

A lot of voters vote based on their party- liking or not liking the presidential candidate does not mean they won't vote for somebody in the same party for another office. People like to vote for "familiar" unless they are given a reason to dislike that person. Voters overwhelming hate Congress yet over 90% who run for re-election get sent back to do the same things they have been doing. If Republicans lose the Senate, it likely won't be Trump's fault. Latest poll gives Congress an approval rating of just 14% (14% approve of the job they are doing). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html In the last election, the re-election rate was 85%.

 

[Ronin Truth]

A lot of voters vote based on their party- liking or not liking the presidential candidate does not mean they won't vote for somebody in the same party for another office. People like to vote for "familiar" unless they are given a reason to dislike that person. Voters overwhelming hate Congress yet over 90% who run for re-election get sent back to do the same things they have been doing. If Republicans lose the Senate, it likely won't be Trump's fault. Latest poll gives Congress an approval rating of just 14% (14% approve of the job they are doing). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html In the last election, the re-election rate was 85%.

Cognitive dissonance of the sheeple simply appalls.

 

[CPUd]

The party has been bleeding out for a while, long before Trump ever got here. The only problem with these articles is that it makes Trump a convenient scapegoat for a party that has already been suffering from a chronic brain hemorrhage due to neoconservative leadership. I'm fairly unimpressed with these articles for that reason.

However, that puts me in a difficult position. If Trump steamrolls over the neocon-backed Cruz as an alternative candidate in the primary, but fails in the general election, neoconservatives will claim that we should all have listened to them when they told us that Trump was unelectable (as if any of their horses in the races ever come in first), and in my opinion that would be a MAJOR step backwards if neocons are allowed to say, "I told you so." I see that as the worst possible outcome of 2016. Don't really much give a shit about the candidates themselves, but if the neocons tell us to bet on their horse during the primary, and we ignore them, but Trump loses in the general, Republicans will go right back to following the neocon's shitty advice for the next several elections. Of course, if Trump wins the whole thing and he's as bad as people think he is, then it will be bad for the country as a whole. Meh.

So to break it down:

A) Don't support Trump and he loses to Hillary, and risk the neocons being able to mentally whip people back onto the slave plantations in the GOP (bad for future liberty prospects in the GOP)
B) Support Trump and he beats Hillary, and give a big "F - U" to the neoconservatives after they've been collaborating with liberal media pundits in trying to say that he's unelectable (bad for the country for the 4-8 years that we'll have to suffer under Trump's presidency, but leaves an opening for a liberty candidate to rise within the GOP since the neocons will have lost even more credibility by betting against Trump ever having a chance)
C) Hillary wins regardless (bad for the country, and at best no progress will be made for the liberty faction of the GOP in terms of working within the GOP)

So yeah, at this point, Trump winning or losing in the general election has more to do with our chances at working our way up in the future GOP primaries than whether or not he is good for the country. I personally do not think that he will be good for the country, but if I see that voting for Trump results in a chance to damage neoconservative credibility in the GOP and neuter them for the purpose of succeeding in future GOP primaries, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna take it. And if the liberal media claims that Trump can't win and he actually does, well, fk their credibility too. We're better off in the future if no one believes anything coming out of their mouths.

After what they did to Ron Paul in 2008, I voted for 1 republican on the ballot and it was for a local position and left the other spots blank. The GOP essentially got no support from me that year. The GOP was dying long before Trump ever got here.

I haven't yet decided what my voting will look like this year, but I'm already certain that *if* I do decide to vote, it will be more about strategic potential than personal conviction.

That is the #1 reason why I disagree with trump being the nominee. I actually wouldn't care otherwise, since Rand dropped his campaign. And because both Trump and Cruz are pretending to take liberty positions, that's where the blame will go. In 2020, the GOP will not tolerate anyone except establishment hacks running past Iowa/NH. True liberty candidates running under the GOP banner for POTUS and Congress will be marginalized and gerrymander'd out of their seats.

 

[brushfire]

The party has been bleeding out for a while, long before Trump ever got here.

Reminds me of how the September 11th attacks had supposedly destroyed the airline industry. As I recall, they'd been on the ropes for decades prior, stemming all the way back to government so called "deregulation"...

The republican party did this to themselves.