Trump may cost the GOP a generation of voters

[ABX]

.....In 1984, voters ages 18 to 24 supported Reagan over Mondale by 61 percent to 39 percent. “The oldest president in U.S. history and the youngest members of the nation’s electorate,” said the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1986 , “have forged one of the strongest bonds in American politics.” The first serious political memories of my generation were of an appealing, creative, electorally dominant (at the national level) GOP.....

....Now jump forward to a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote poll that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 56 percent to 20 percent among voters under 35. Let that sink in. Trump is supported by 1 in 5 younger voters — an astonishing and consequential collapse for the GOP......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-may-cost-the-gop-a-generation-of-voters/2016/08/15/91d56582-6306-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?postshare=5731471312545152&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.9425a8bf8fbb

[geronl]

Like it was planned

[dfwgator]

GOP was dead anyway.  Oh sure they could still have some modest success in the mid-terms, but as far as fielding a successful national candidate, it's dead in the water.

Time to change the brand.

[INVAR]

GOP was dead anyway.  Oh sure they could still have some modest success in the mid-terms, but as far as fielding a successful national candidate, it's dead in the water.

Exactly.  They we're already part and parcel in the Uniparty oligarchy that is Mordor on the Potomac.

Let it be absorbed into the Democratic People's Party where it truly belongs anyway.

The Constitutional Republic no longer exists except in Name Only anyways.  They just pay it lip service to give themselves authority that they have already usurped or traded or surrendered.

[sinkspur]

GOP was dead anyway.  Oh sure they could still have some modest success in the mid-terms, but as far as fielding a successful national candidate, it's dead in the water.

Time to change the brand.

The brand may need to be changed, but Kasich or Rubio or even Cruz would likely be beating Hillary at this point.  This was the most winnable election for the GOP in decades.

But, Trump.

[geronl]

 

The brand may need to be changed, but Kasich or Rubio or even Cruz would likely be beating Hillary at this point.  This was the most winnable election for the GOP in decades.

But, Trump.

 

[ABX]

The brand may need to be changed, but Kasich or Rubio or even Cruz would likely be beating Hillary at this point.  This was the most winnable election for the GOP in decades.

But, Trump.

There is absolutely no reason why this isn't even close except we chose the worst candidate to go up against Hillary. She is the absolute worst with unlikable numbers right up there with Trump. She is corrupt, criminal, not a good speaker, unhealthy, and has zero accomplishments you can point to, yet she is winning. Why? Because we gave her a present wrapped in orange spray tan.

[dfwgator]

 

2012 was much more winnable than this.

[XenaLee]

Like it was planned

Planned....orchestrated....and implemented.

[XenaLee]

There is absolutely no reason why this isn't even close except we chose the worst candidate to go up against Hillary. She is the absolute worst with unlikable numbers right up there with Trump. She is corrupt, criminal, not a good speaker, unhealthy, and has zero accomplishments you can point to, yet she is winning. Why? Because we gave her a present wrapped in orange spray tan.

Don't forget.  We got a lot of help (excluding myself from that "we").  Help from leftist Democrats, in fact.

[musiclady]

The brand may need to be changed, but Kasich or Rubio or even Cruz would likely be beating Hillary at this point.  This was the most winnable election for the GOP in decades.

But, Trump.

It's going to be hard to forget what Trump has cost Conservatism.......  we should have won this election hands down with even a decent human being running against Hillary.

No surprise, though that young people don't like Trump.   They're young and idealistic, and he's a creepy old man who is greedy and corrupt.  No matter what end of the political spectrum they're on, people with their whole lives ahead of them know they can't trust him, and that he's probably going to make the world even more dangerous than it already is.

[dfwgator]

It's going to be hard to forget what Trump has cost Conservatism.......  we should have won this election hands down with even a decent human being running against Hillary.

 

Well we tried that with Romney in 2012 against a vulnerable Obama and it didn't work neither.  I'm sorry I just don't see any of the other candidates winning, all of them had huge flaws as well, that's why none of them could beat out Trump in the end.  Or we would have been stuck with somebody "Dem-Lite", like Kasich.

[Restored]

They say that about every Republican candidate.

Millennials like my daughter think Hillary is an absolute insult to the nation. A 70 year-old retread is leading the party of Change?  The first woman President is elected because of her husband?

[240B]

Well we tried that with Romney in 2012 against a vulnerable Obama and it didn't work neither.  I'm sorry I just don't see any of the other candidates winning, all of them had huge flaws as well, that's why none of them could beat out Trump in the end.  Or we would have been stuck with somebody "Dem-Lite", like Kasich.

I agree. Who is the mythical candidate who would have won the election in a overwhelming landslide?

Is it Bush? or Cruz? or Romney? Who was the guy?

As far as the next generation of voters, I'm not sure that they will know or even care what an election is.

[Cripplecreek]

The brand may need to be changed, but Kasich or Rubio or even Cruz would likely be beating Hillary at this point.  This was the most winnable election for the GOP in decades.

But, Trump.

Cruz was doing surprisingly well with young voters, many of them first timers. Obviously Paul and Rubio also did well with them.

[sinkspur]

Well we tried that with Romney in 2012 against a vulnerable Obama and it didn't work neither.  I'm sorry I just don't see any of the other candidates winning, all of them had huge flaws as well, that's why none of them could beat out Trump in the end.  Or we would have been stuck with somebody "Dem-Lite", like Kasich.

Kasich was winning every poll against Hillary.

The fact is, a certain segment of the GOP voting base decided that an insulting, misogynistic demagogue would lead them to the promised land this cycle, and they cast their lot with him.

"Finally," they said "We have a man who will stand up to the Democrats, stand up to the media, stand up to the establishment."

Only now, they're finding out that that man is an ignorant narcissist who has no idea how to organize for a general campaign and really has no interest in taking on Hillary Clinton in any meaningful way.  Instead, he's focused on intraparty battles and defending himself against a Gold Star family. 

The blame doesn't just lie with Trump.  A large part of it falls on his cult-worshiping sycophants who are easily duped.

[Restored]

The media chose Trump as the nominee. They set him up like a bowling pin. Now he's a big mannequin covered in glue.

[dfwgator]

Sorry, but I saw very little difference between Kasich and Hillary.  Kasich is a Democrat in all but name. 

[musiclady]

Well we tried that with Romney in 2012 against a vulnerable Obama and it didn't work neither.  I'm sorry I just don't see any of the other candidates winning, all of them had huge flaws as well, that's why none of them could beat out Trump in the end.  Or we would have been stuck with somebody "Dem-Lite", like Kasich.

I disagree that the flaws they had resulted in Trump's beating them.  From the beginning of the primaries, no one else was able to get their message out because Trump sucked all the air out of the room.  The media (who chose him as our nominee, btw) gave him hours and hours of free coverage, his own uncontrolled vulgarity and nastiness against the other candidates created more media coverage for him, and less for everyone else, and no one else ever had a shot.

Scott Walker dropped out early to allow an actual conservative to beat Trump, but too many stayed in too long.

There were several candidates significantly better than Trump in every way: character, conservatism, and electability, but the media frenzy and the cult of personality plurality allowed him to defeat far better candidates.

And he was the only one (aside from Graham and Gilmore) who literally had NO chance to beat the damaged and corrupt Hillary.

@dfwgator

[dfwgator]

I do agree it was a shame that Walker had to be the one that dropped out.   I much would have rather seen Kasich drop out then instead.

[dfwgator]

Also, Jeb had no business running in the first place,  he also sucked a lot of the air out.  In fact I would say Trump's success was based on being the "Anti-Jeb". And had Jeb not run, odds are Trump wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

[musiclady]

I do agree it was a shame that Walker had to be the one that dropped out.   I much would have rather seen Kasich drop out then instead.

But Walker understood the damage that Trump was doing, and dropped out to consolidate the vote against him.

Unfortunately, no one else followed suit.  If we hadn't had all the loser candidates in there, Trump would have never gotten the plurality, and we wouldn't have evil vs. evil in November.

Hillary is so awful that I would say at least four or five (or more) would have beaten her handily.  Trump will lose.

[musiclady]

Also, Jeb had no business running in the first place,  he also sucked a lot of the air out.

I don't think he ever wanted to run.  But if he "sucked the air out" it was only because of the media.

Not because he's a dimwit, vulgar, and mean.

Trump did it deliberately.

For the attention, and I believe, to help his pal Hillary get elected.

(Nothing has happened since the Primary to dissuade me from that opinion.  He's a stalking horse, plain and simple).

[Jazzhead]

Or we would have been stuck with somebody "Dem-Lite", like Kasich.

You mean a Reagan conservative (Kasich) as President working with a GOP Congress.   (Yeah,  I know, Reaganites of my generation are routinely insulted as "Dem-lite" by the talk radio mob).

 It would have been a triumph for conservative governance.  And for the nation.

But instead,  we'll likely get Dems in control of it all, including the Courts.   

May Donald Trump and his supporters be damned.     

[Suppressed]

... recent USA Today/Rock the Vote poll that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 56 percent to 20 percent among voters under 35.

Interesting line.  Zogby has Trump and Hillary tied at 30% among 25-34 year old likely voters.

The anti-Trump sentiment is concentrated with the youngest voters.  Clinton leads 36%-26% with 18-29 years old, but an astounding 59%-22% for 18-24 year olds (in the same Zogby results).