Jump to content


Photo

Texas at play 2016?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 20 April 2016 - 06:39 AM

I know that the politics of electing a president on down to state and local races is a touchy subject for discussion. But here goes:  If Trump is the GOP presidential nominee will Texas be in play for Democrats at the top and all down the line in our state this year?  As we know, a lot of people, including Texans, don't like that guy.



#2 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 20 April 2016 - 08:09 AM

Even with Trump's unfavorable approval ratings, I still have a hard time seeing it as anything but a blip for Democrats in Texas or any other solidly Republican state. See the 2014 governors race and midterms for proof. It's gonna take a lot more than an unsavory candidate to overcome that level of dominance.

#3 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 21 April 2016 - 11:37 PM

I doubt it.  It would take more than Trump to turn Texas blue.  The hatred for Hillary is pretty strong, and the label of socialist will scare many away from Bernie if he somehow manages to overtake her.


My blog: Doohickie

#4 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 22 April 2016 - 07:31 AM

I know that the politics of electing a president on down to state and local races is a touchy subject for discussion. But here goes:  If Trump is the GOP presidential nominee will Texas be in play for Democrats at the top and all down the line in our state this year?  As we know, a lot of people, including Texans, don't like that guy.

 

It should not be a touchy subject for discussion at all. 

 

This election is going to be of such a very crystal clear decision from which the voter can make a choice that it will be in play because of the stark differences among the candidates. 

 

North Texas, alone, adds 150,000 new residents yearly; many who are young , educated and urban; you may have noticed longer lines and heavier traffic.  The changes that have occurred in Florida are underway in Texas. 

 

All indications suggest that there will be a highly motivated electorate; and if turnout is above normal, then Texas will be in play. 



#5 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,304 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 April 2016 - 08:15 AM

Polarizing candidates on both sides of the presidential election will not change the 2014 governor's election demographics enough to put Texas in play.

#6 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 22 May 2016 - 09:29 PM

Polarizing candidates on both sides of the presidential election will not change the 2014 governor's election demographics enough to put Texas in play.

 

You are probably correct on down ballot races.  But with significant numbers of people in both parties unlikely to be happy (and that is putting it mildly) with their choices in November - on the presidential vote I would say anything is possible.   Polarizing presidential candidates are nothing new.  But the candidates this year are polarizing within their own parties.  I read an article the other day that said that the percentage of Democrat primary voters who have voted for Sanders is approximately the same as the percentage of Republican primary voters who voted for Trump.  Another analyst I read somewhere pointed out that Hillary Clinton will be going into the general election as the second weakest candidate ever - second only to Donald Trump.   Personally, I think both are walking disasters.

 

And one of the biggest mistakes people in both parties make is assuming that they votes they get in an election were cast for their guy.  In many instances - and perhaps most - the motivation of voters is primarily to vote AGAINST the other guy.   That has certainly been the case with me more often than not.   This year - well, I can only hold my nose for so much.

 

My hunch is that we have before us a period of considerable economic and political upheaval.  It wouldn't surprise me if one or perhaps even both of our existing political parties will implode and go the way of the Whigs.   What will replace them - maybe it will be something better.  But my fear is that there is a good chance it will be something much, much worse. The American political system, to me, has more and more shown signs of resembling that of a banana republic for about 20 years now. 

 

What is frightening to me is the cult of personality we saw surrounding Obama in 2008 being repeated again this year among a different group of people with Donald Trump.  Obama himself described the phenomenon as "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  Trump, in typical fashion, put it more crudely: "“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,”  Basically we have a bunch of clueless people on both sides of the political aisle seeking out a Fuhrer who will slay their dragons and lead them to Paradise.   No, I don't think that there was any danger that Obama could have become a Fuhrer and I don't think there is any danger of Trump becoming one either - both of them are too polarizing and disliked by large numbers of people. If elected Trump would become a very unpopular president and so would a President Hillary.  But what truly frightens me is if, down the road, a similar type of personality should arise who is able to gain a wider base of appeal.  Trump is, at worse, a wannabe Mussolini.   My fear is we may someday get the real thing - and that person's supporters will behave in ways similar to what we have already seen over the course of the past two elections.

Sometimes I feel as though I am living in a modern version of the Weimar Republic - only without its great music and culture.


Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#7 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 22 May 2016 - 10:07 PM

 

Polarizing candidates on both sides of the presidential election will not change the 2014 governor's election demographics enough to put Texas in play.

 

....But with significant numbers of people in both parties unlikely to be happy (and that is putting it mildly) with their choices in November.... the motivation of voters is primarily to vote AGAINST the other guy.   That has certainly been the case with me more often than not.   This year - well, I can only hold my nose for so much......Basically we have a bunch of clueless people on both sides of the political aisle seeking out a Fuhrer who will slay their dragons and lead them to Paradise. 

 

Speaking for myself, I think that your comments are demeaning.  It may be true for you; but not for me.

 

Obama was not elected because of a cult personality; far from it.  Cults hardly ever last longer than one term.  He was re elected; and democratically.

 

The electorate has only itself to blame...Constantly dissatisfied with the same representatives that it, itself elects.  It requires careful consideration and thought; but ultimately, more people will be able to separate sanity from insanity than those who will not be able to so; and will vote appropriately.  I know that I will be capable of distinguishing between the two with very very little effort.

 

I will be voting "for" the candidate! The one who is the more prepared and qualified to lead this great nation.



#8 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 22 May 2016 - 11:10 PM

 

 

Obama was not elected because of a cult personality; far from it.  Cults hardly ever last longer than one term.  He was re elected; and democratically.

 

 

 

That is certainly correct.  There are plenty of people who voted for Obama in 2008 who were not part of the cult of personality that we witnessed at the time - just as there will be plenty of people who will cast votes for Trump later this year who were not part of the this year's cult of personality.   There are a lot of reasons people vote for a presidential candidate - and one of the biggest is that the person at the top usually has to be pretty awful for someone who is partisan to risk their party not having the White House.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that the phenomenon existed both in 2008 and in in the recent Republican primary season.  We had people fawning over Obama because he stood for "hope" and "change." but, when asked, they were utterly unable to define exactly what that translated to in practice or policy - and they didn't really care.   They just wanted "change" - and Obama was going to make it happen.  Change?  From what to what?   Who cares?  We just need change.  Same with Trump  - by golly he is going to change things, go after the "establishment" and essentially take on "The Man."  What  exactly does that translate to in practice or policy? They can't say and they don't really care.  They just want "change" and to crush their enemies and Trump, they say, is going to somehow make that happen.

 

And, yes, that cult of personality went away very quickly once Obama got into office - as will the similar cult with Trump if he gets elected.  That's because neither man has the magic wand that their fanatical following just assumed they would be able to wave to vanquish their enemies and make the world seem somehow happy and wonderful. Also it is because neither Obama nor Trump make for very good cult figures.   But my big fear is that there is some future candidate for President  out there right now - somebody whose name might still be obscure - who is studying the phenomenon from both 2008 and 2016 and taking notes on how it might be harnessed in ways that both Obama and Trump would have been unable to do even if they wanted to.


Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#9 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 22 May 2016 - 11:30 PM

As an addendum to my previous posting - I might add that a large number of the people who were part of the cults of personality in 2008 and in 2016 were not the usual regulars in party politics.   A large percentage were people who were not previously politically active.  These were people who became active for the first time during the primaries and ended up bringing about an upset victory in each case.  Once Obama got in office and did not have the magic wand they hoped he would have, many of them just faded away and went back to their normal state of not being especially politically active.   Same with the Trump voters - many are people who were previously not active in Republican party politics and their current interest will likely fade away once they face a similar disillusionment with Trump.   

 

What frightens me is if this segment of the population continues to grow and some populist figure who is more suited to being a cult figure and who is not and does not seek to be strongly identified with either political party comes along and finds a way to appeal to those from both the Left and the Right who don't have particularly strong political views or loyalties but simply want a "strong leader" who will "change things." 


Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#10 Jimmy

Jimmy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76116

Posted 23 May 2016 - 10:15 AM

I'm not voting for either of them.



#11 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 May 2016 - 11:36 AM

I'm not voting for either of them.

 

You certainly have the right not to engage in our democracy, however it is not admirable.

 

After reading this short narration; perhaps the time test adage of "silence is golden" is a better form of expression than boasting:

 

http://thedailyblog....voting-in-2014/

 

Reaffirming: I will be voting in favor of a candidate and with the clear consciences that I did so!



#12 Jimmy

Jimmy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76116

Posted 23 May 2016 - 11:43 AM

I didn't say I'm not voting.  I said I'm not voting for either of them.



#13 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 May 2016 - 12:11 PM

I didn't say I'm not voting.  I said I'm not voting for either of them.

 

 "Got it!" :)



#14 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 23 May 2016 - 12:12 PM

It's been a while since I felt I voted "for" a candidate, especially the last three presidential races. The decision usually comes down to whom I dislike the least.

 

I do agree with the cult like analogy that dismuke offered. I saw it firsthand when my daughter actually cried when Obama won the first go around. I asked her why and she said "I'm just so happy that someone I voted for got into office!" (it was the first time she voted, but had been eligible for several years before) Prior to that, when I asked her why she voted the way she did she really couldn't justify it. Since the start of Obama's second term I noticed she was totally swallowing all the propaganda the opposing party put forth without much of a question to its validity.


Erik France


#15 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 May 2016 - 12:22 PM

It is very simple - one should vote for oneself; there is not an obligation to explain your vote to any one.  Having to explain only leads to feeling intimidated and coerced. 

 

The democracy works best, as it should, when there is One Person; One Vote...that is why the ballot is secret.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users