Trump or Hillary?

[phil19034]

Trump or Hillary ? 60 years ago only one would be considered a dangerous extremist, and no one would be asking can I as a Catholic, vote for the other one. I leave it to posters to figure out which one is which.

Correct. 60 years ago Hillary would have been considered a dangerous extremist.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’ve seen polls and data also indicating that independents tend to lean conservative.

So if the Republicans nominated a true conservative, they might get a lot more votes; as we know, many were disappointed with Dole and Romney and McCain.

 

[AFerri48]

This is actually starting to make me wonder. Are all the people voting for Trump masochists or something? They want a Republican president, but they want to nominate the guy who has a low shot of winning the general, while Rubio has consistently been virtually matching or even beating Hillary in votes.

 

[Trident_H]

Marco Rubio needs to win the nomination as he is by far the most electable from my perspective. The guy has great composure, knows how to handle verbal attacks, is very clear when he speaks, and is very firm on his policies. Plus, he gave the best pro-life speech I have ever heard by a politician, and I will post the video because it’s just that good.

youtube.com/watch?v=xqUNZ-qwBsA

Yeah. That’s my guy. For sure.

 

[powerofk]

I’ve seen polls and data also indicating that independents tend to lean conservative.

So if the Republicans nominated a true conservative, they might get a lot more votes; as we know, many were disappointed with Dole and Romney and McCain.

Some independents tend to lean conservative. There are many who lean “liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever” and many who are centrists who are disgusted with both parties. Seriously, even today, Democrats blame Al Gore’s loss in 2000 not only on a JEB! conspiracy in FL and the 5-4 SCOTUS decision, but also on Ralph Nader, who they believe siphoned enough votes from Gore for Gore to lose.

In 1992 and 1996, it’s actually less clear whose votes Perot siphoned off more of (especially in 1992, as Perot dropped out during the time that the Democratic National Convention was being held, citing threats against his family, only to re-enter the race about a month later - shortly after Perot’s initial drop-out, Clinton’s poll numbers skyrocketed). GHWBush blamed his loss partly on Perot (which is why Dole refused to allow Perot to debate in 1996 - and why it’s often stated that 3rd party votes would have gone to the GOP), but the truth is much vaguer.

 

[anthrogirl]

Suppose that Trump wins the Republican nomination and Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. (You can discuss how likely this in in the comments, if you want; for now, just run a thought experiment with me.) Would you vote for Trump or Hillary? Would you abandon your current party or typical voting block to do so?

If Trump gets the nomination, the dem nominee will win the presidency. The swing vote is not as big as the media makes it out to be. Most independents are more consistent in their voting trends than they’d like people to believe. That being said, Trump is not appealing to the true swing voters. And he’s pretty much slammed the door on the minority and youth votes. He reminds me of the student who won class president my senior year in high school. He was the renegade. He was certainly not establishment and his campaign was all about how the big high school administration (principal, APs, staff) were oppressing the students and wasting resources that could be better spent on student accommodations such as better food in the cafeteria, etc. He was a pot smoking, c grade level kid who was very successful socially because he appealed to the average Joe student. In fact, as an adult, he’s continued to be quite successful. Trump reminds of this average intelligence renegade successful kid. It’s all about charisma and promising to redirect attention/money/focus away from others to us. Trump makes it all about us and that type of me-me attitude is very very attractive to many people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If Trump gets the nomination, the dem nominee will win the presidency. The swing vote is not as big as the media makes it out to be. Most independents are more consistent in their voting trends than they’d like people to believe. That being said, Trump is not appealing to the true swing voters. And he’s pretty much slammed the door on the minority and youth votes. He reminds me of the student who won class president my senior year in high school. He was the renegade. He was certainly not establishment and his campaign was all about how the big high school administration (principal, APs, staff) were oppressing the students and wasting resources that could be better spent on student accommodations such as better food in the cafeteria, etc. He was a pot smoking, c grade level kid who was very successful socially because he appealed to the average Joe student. In fact, as an adult, he’s continued to be quite successful. Trump reminds of this average intelligence renegade successful kid. It’s all about charisma and promising to redirect attention/money/focus away from others to us. Trump makes it all about us and that type of me-me attitude is very very attractive to many people.

Maybe so, but just as Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly “lurch to the right” after she gets the nomination, Trump might very well do and say things that win a wider group of voters than one now imagines. If voters manage to forget about Hillary Clinton handing Libya over to ISIS-aligned groups, manifest influence peddling, and the classified emails, they’ll forget anything Trump says at the moment, too.

How truly dedicated, for example, are Black or Hispanic voters to Hillary Clinton? She’ll promise free this and that, but Trump has a certain amount of credibility when it comes to the nitty gritty of job creation, for example. I realize it sounds strange, but I could see Trump making serious inroads into the ranks of working people and people who wish they were working.

Trump is not my choice among the Repubs, but I think it’s foolish to count him out at this stage.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

How truly dedicated, for example, are Black or Hispanic voters to Hillary Clinton? She’ll promise free this and that, but Trump has a certain amount of credibility when it comes to the nitty gritty of job creation, for example. I realize it sounds strange, but I could see Trump making serious inroads into the ranks of working people and people who wish they were working.

Romney had an equal amount of credibility in re: job creation, and was less extreme than Trump on issues of immigration. Yet he overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote.

 

[gnjsdad]

I voted for neither since neither candidate promises to help bring about what this country desperately needs: a Catholic revival in the US.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Romney had an equal amount of credibility in re: job creation, and was less extreme than Trump on issues of immigration. Yet he overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote.

I almost hesitate to say this because it’s so terribly politically incorrect, but one has to realize how testosterone-soaked the Hispanic world in the U.S. really is. Romney, despite his virtues, was “Mr. Mom Jeans” to many, and his backing away from the fight with Obama in the last debates finished it.

I don’t know millions of Hispanics, but I know and have known quite a few, and that counts for a lot. It’s true too that nobody on this planet is quite as capitalistic as a Mexican, inherently. If one does business with them, one knows that.

And I can just see Trump rubbing elbows with a bunch of black working men and women. Manliness and the promise of an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work are not small things for them. He would be at ease with them in a way Hillary Clinton could never be. She’ll have every activist and academic, but the numbers are in those who drive to work every day.

So, while Hillary might come up with free this and free that, and surely will, she isn’t going to “out-man” Trump. I personally doubt he’ll get the nomination, but in a race with Hillary I think he could get more of the minority votes than people now believe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I voted for neither since neither candidate promises to help bring about what this country desperately needs: a Catholic revival in the US.

No candidate is going to do that. It needs to begin with Catholics themselves.

 

[anthrogirl]

Maybe so, but just as Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly “lurch to the right” after she gets the nomination, Trump might very well do and say things that win a wider group of voters than one now imagines. If voters manage to forget about Hillary Clinton handing Libya over to ISIS-aligned groups, manifest influence peddling, and the classified emails, they’ll forget anything Trump says at the moment, too.

How truly dedicated, for example, are Black or Hispanic voters to Hillary Clinton? She’ll promise free this and that, but Trump has a certain amount of credibility when it comes to the nitty gritty of job creation, for example. I realize it sounds strange, but I could see Trump making serious inroads into the ranks of working people and people who wish they were working.

Trump is not my choice among the Repubs, but I think it’s foolish to count him out at this stage.

How does your analysis change if the dem nominee is Sanders?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I almost hesitate to say this because it’s so terribly politically incorrect, but one has to realize how testosterone-soaked the Hispanic world in the U.S. really is. Romney, despite his virtues, was “Mr. Mom Jeans” to many, and his backing away from the fight with Obama in the last debates finished it.

So you’re saying that if Romney had been more of a man, the machismo of hispanic voters would have overcome the antipathy towards his self-deportation proposal?

Similarly, will Trump’s manhood overcome the time when he referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists in his presidential announcement?

And I can just see Trump rubbing elbows with a bunch of black working men and women. Manliness and the promise of an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work are not small things for them. He would be at ease with them in a way Hillary Clinton could never be. She’ll have every activist and academic, but the numbers are in those who drive to work every day.

You underestimate the Clinton’s popularity among black voters–particularly Bill Clinton, whose genius at reaching the black voter was so profound that Toni Morrison called him “the first black president.”

 

[gnjsdad]

No candidate is going to do that. It needs to begin with Catholics themselves.

I quite agree. A Catholic restoration requires action by the laity and the hierarchy. And that means an all out effort aimed at conversion. It also means leaving the current political system to collapse of its own accord. Trump? Hillary? Who cares. Neither will do what needs to be done. Either one will make bringing about Christ’s kingdom on Earth more difficult one way or the other.

Christ gave His Church the mandate - go and teach all nations…

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you’re saying that if Romney had been more of a man, the machismo of hispanic voters would have overcome the antipathy towards his self-deportation proposal?

Similarly, will Trump’s manhood overcome the time when he referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists in his presidential announcement?

You underestimate the Clinton’s popularity among black voters–particularly Bill Clinton, whose genius at reaching the black voter was so profound that Toni Morrison called him “the first black president.”

Trump’s “machismo” in itself will do nothing. But it could aid him in establishing a better rapport with Hispanic voters than I think a lot of people believe. Many think of Hispanics as supine and unthinking welfare worshipers who would follow the dispensers of welfare to the grave. That might apply to some, but it sure doesn’t apply to many. And a lot of Hispanics don’t like illegal immigration either. At least among the Hispanics I know, financial opportunity is massively more important. Trump might not capitalize on that, but he might.

Bill Clinton’s popularity with black voters might not be a transferable commodity. Hillary Clinton is the very embodiment of “white privilege” notwithstanding her marriage to Bill Clinton.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How does your analysis change if the dem nominee is Sanders?

Whatever it’s worth, my take on Sanders is that he’s the darling of the educated left, but not with anyone else. At most, that’s 30% or 35% of the Dem party. Nearly all Democrats who vote would vote for him in the general election, of course. But a lot wouldn’t vote. I realize some university or other has projected Sanders as the winner nationwide. But I don’t see it.

 

[Peter_J]

I personally doubt he’ll get the nomination,

That has been my thinking too … only I have to admit that I’m less certain now that Trump is at 41% in the last national poll. When he was at 25-30%, or even 35%, it was different. But now if it 41% naming him as their first choice, and 59% not naming him as their first choice, it’s well within the realm of possibility that 9-out-of-59 of the latter group will take Trump as their second (or third etc) choice once their first choice drops out.

I’ll be interested to see what the next poll says – and, in particular, whether Trump drops down after his recent spike.

 

[Peter_J]

I quite agree. A Catholic restoration requires action by the laity and the hierarchy. And that means an all out effort aimed at conversion. It also means leaving the current political system to collapse of its own accord.

So you don’t think the next President should propose a bill for a new Inquisition?

 

[Daniel_David]

Hi,
I lost my first response which gave you all the Republicans ideas. All are prolife. I don’t know why I have two soliloquies on Hillary and Benhhazi. I’ll erase one if I can figure it out. Once was enough. The Republicans are very similar. Only Trump is paying his own way and owes no one. Paul Rand is a good man and doctor but he is a liberal in Republican clothes. A few days a year, after an attack, I’d vote for him. Isolate, Stop sending money to those who hate us. He is a strong constitutionalist. He was against the Patriot Act to protect our privacy . Bush is a Catholic with years in politics. Honest man. Will owe favors from benefactors. Rubio missed meetings on terrorism and he is on the committee. Carly Forina has won debates. Has good ideas. Who couldn’t love Carson.
God give us wisdom on election day.
Let us vote as you would.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

Did I read that right? Jeb Bush is Catholic??? No he isn’t!!! He might “say” he is Catholic, but he, his brother and Father are definitely NOT Catholic! Good luck my American neighbours!

 

[DeniseNY]

Did I read that right? Jeb Bush is Catholic??? No he isn’t!!! He might “say” he is Catholic, but he, his brother and Father are definitely NOT Catholic! Good luck my American neighbours!

So people who convert aren’t Catholic enough for you? So why do we even bother to tell people about the faith, if they’ll never be Catholic enough?