Trump to court Sanders supporters
I’ve been called a purist. I’ve been ridiculed for cleaving to corny old nonsense like “values” and “integrity.” So I know where Clinton skeptics are coming from. But, I truly feel sorry for the nit wits, nutbags, and wild-eyed zealots who could be taken in by something like this.
Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is planning its next coup: vying for the votes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) supporters who say they won’t back Hillary Clinton in a general election.
“You have two candidates in Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders which have reignited a group of people who have been disenfranchised and disappointed with the way Washington, D.C. and career politicians have run the country,” campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CNN on Friday.
“Bernie Sanders has large crowds – not as large as Mr. Trump’s, but large crowds – and so there is a level of excitement there for people about his messaging and we will bring those people in,” he also said.
Trump has long claimed his ability to garner support from Democrats and independents, but a recent poll found just 13 percent of Democratic-leaning voters who support Sanders have a favorable view of the outspoken billionaire.
I hope Hillary courts Sanders supporters better than she did during the primary campaign.
“But, I truly feel sorry for the nit wits, nutbags, and wild-eyed zealots who could be taken in by something like this. ”
I would feel the same but I recognize that revolutionary fervor often results in stampedes and the way you give it direction is to join the stampede at the front and start leading the herd where you want it to go.
I’m guessing that Trump will seek to co-opt the revolution with his messaging, getting it to merge with his own herd. The herd’s critical thinking ability is suspended during a stampede, up to the point where they are led off the cliff. That’s when the “Oh wait!” kicks in.
I know that Libertarians compose a small portion of the electorate, but I think their reactions during this campaign are instructive.
About 30% of them are supporting Trump despite the fact that he is an authoritarian.
About 30% of them are supporting Sanders despite the fact that he advocates taxes and big government.
About 40% of them plan not to vote or vote third-party.
The support for either Sanders or Trump is based not on policy positions but on “outsider” status–both are perceived as being inimical to entrenched interests, and both are perceived as being able to shake up the existing structure in ways that Clinton would never even know existed. If Sanders is not available, about half of his supporters will not vote or go third-party, but the other half will go to Trump.
Think, on a larger scale, what happens if a much as a quarter of Sanders’ supporters either vote Trump or stay home. Either way, that’s literally millions of voters for Trump and even more millions lost to Clinton. Those people do not care about policy positions or flip-flopping–they get or think they do the idea of tactical attacks and changing positions to keep the opponent (which is the establishment) off balance.
Steve – You are wildly under-estimating the political awareness of Sander supporters.
If Sanders is not available, about half of [the intensely anti-establishment cohort among ] his supporters will not vote or go third-party, but the other half will go to Trump.
It is a fraction of a fraction…more like 5-10% of overall Sanders supporters.
McCain to target Clinton backers
Remember this? He even went so far as to pick a woman to try to win over the PUMAs. Good times!
This is basically more trash talk from the Trump campaign. While I have no doubt that some of the Bernie supporters will vote for Trump, those supporters are only voting for their outsider status. It’s not far from saying that you don’t own any U2 music after Joshua Tree.
Steve’s comment does a disservice to Bernie supporters – painting them as people who don’t care, or know, or understand policy, the SCOTUS, are a-okay with racism, bigotry and sexism and are only interested in blowing things up. And if those voters existed (sure, there are a few on every side) then I would never consider them Bernie supporters to begin with – because if what you say is true, Steve, they were always going to end up with Trump. Hey, he’ll even run on free college tuition! Yep, you’re doing Bernie supporters a disservice.
“It’s not far from saying that you don’t own any U2 music after Joshua Tree.”
LOL!
@jason and pandora I disagree. I have predicted that 25% of Sanders supporters will not vote for Clinton and that possibly half of them will actually consider voting for Trump.
Since Sanders earned roughly 45% of Dem primary votes and allowing he would have garnered several million more from independent voters in open primaries my estimate is therefore roughly that the primary battle would sufficiently alienate about 10% of Dem primary voters and/or Sanders indie supporters to make them think about staying home or voting for somebody other than Hillary.
I don’t think that’s at all ridiculous based on existing polling data and social media information. Even if I have doubled the number of disaffected that’s still a 5% loss of Sanders supporters to Clinton.
Are you guys seriously arguing that over 95% of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton? If so I am not the one living in cloud cuckoo land. The average bleed for defeated major primary opponents is closer to 7-8% and such a bleed of Reagan supporters in 1976 arguably cost Ford dearly.
I, for one, am impressed that the Professor made a reference to The Lego Movie.
“While I have no doubt that some of the Bernie supporters will vote for Trump, those supporters are only voting for their outsider status.”
But they can never be allowed to forget that they are also voting for Nationalsim, xenophobia and bigotry. It acceptable to vote for someone and not agree with everything they say (im gonna do it in November)…. but what he has said is so unforgivable, voting for him is also unforgivable. I would turn my back on family over this.
I do think that Clinton will get more of the independent vote than might be projected. The primary reason for my thought is reason. Despite Sanders’ numbers, most Americans really want stability not revolution. They don’t want stagnation in terms of the economy, progress, justice, etc. but they want it within the envelope of stability in our government and our institutions.
Trump has created uncertainty about what he would or wouldn’t do. Waking up on November 9, most people want the familiar, the institution where even if it doesn’t work well, it remains stable force that underpins the nation and is able to respond to crises and events that rock the ship. That doesn’t mean they don’t want change or don’t want things to work better. They don’t want the status quo, but they don’t want to tear it down and start all over again, even if they grumble about doing just that over a beer.
Clinton gets the independent vote, because at the end of the day, Trump scares many people and they don’t want to be the ones who get fired on his ultimate reality show.
@Ben: They’ve been told that already. They don’t care.
Then there’s this:
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/
The article points out the issues on which people will be able to fool themselves that Clinton is more conservative than Trump. Clinton backers won’t find it convincing, but remember, you’re not the people he’s talking about.
@Dave: You mean the kind of security we got from GWB when he used the military to create a more volatile Middle East? That kind of stability?
Your reasoning is valid right up to the point at which you think “therefore they’ll vote for Clinton.” And you criticize me for not understanding logic? Heh.
If they’re not reasoning — and the studies show only a minority arrives at their choice by reason — they’re not doing what you claim they’ll do.
Also, this. Another ex-military professor sounds the same warnings Steve Newton has:
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/donald_trump_can_actually_beat_hillary_in_november_stubborn_pundits_still_refuse_to_accept_it/
Wonkette has just the right response to that Salon article:
“@Dave: You mean the kind of security we got from GWB when he used the military to create a more volatile Middle East? That kind of stability?”
@anonymous, You are having a great deal of difficulty with the inference thing aren’t you? You somehow made the leap from a comment regarding stability to military matters. I’m guessing that it was my use of the word “force” when I was discussing government institutions, which you then equated (inferred) that I meant the military. Or is it that you have a significant interest or focus on military matters and consequently a confirmation bias to interpret comments in that light?
Keep working on it though. Deductive reasoning is difficult, especially for those who are not adept at nuance.
@Dave: Like nuance is your specialty. You talked about stability without mentioning the area in which Clinton is most likely to upset stability. Just because you don’t like having the holes in your arguments driven through doesn’t make them disappear.
Really, Cassandra? You think an article titled “Dear Salon, Set Your Dick On Fire And Eat It” is a rational response to what the Salon article said?
It’s filled with rational responses such as “Walker Bragman MUST PUNISH THE WHORE CLINTON MUST PUNISH HER SO BAD”
So the sad, tired “if you don’t like Hillary you’re a sexist” argument gets trotted out by Wonkette. What a surprise.
The fact that you think that’s “just the right response” shows you’re just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else.
And while we’re at it, condescending Dave, you still haven’t said whether using the military to protect corporate oil interests is OK with you. I inferred it from what you wrote, which you strongly, strongly disapprove of, unless it’s you doing it, of course.
Fuckstick.
@SN “I have predicted that 25% of Sanders supporters will not vote for Clinton and that possibly half of them will actually consider voting for Trump.”
Yes, but for every demographic that is less likely to go for Clinton, there are others (e.g. Hispanics) who will be driven to the polls in greater number.
Trump has made multiple enemies.
@a “Really, Cassandra? You think an article titled “Dear Salon, Set Your Dick On Fire And Eat It” is a rational response to what the Salon article said?”
Yes. It deserved exactly that sort of mocking. Did you actually read it?
Yes, I did. Mocking is not reason, so you’re just flat wrong to answer “yes” to my question of whether Cassandra (not you) thought that represented a rational response. There was nothing fact-based in there, just an attack on the idea devoid of anything coherent let alone convincing.
If those tactics were used to criticize Hillary — basically quoting what he’s said in the past, as if he hasn’t said both sides of an issue — it’s equally valid.
A lot of people here seem to be unclear about what a progressive is. Here, I’ll fill you in with an assist from Wikipedia:
“The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family.”
Reason. The scientific method. Where does mockery fit in the scientific method? And I don’t mean mockery added to reason, I mean mockery in its place.
It’s easy to refute much of that article, but you’ll notice that’s not what our third-generation Wonkette did (it’s impossible to replace Marcotte). She exploded in rage instead. And this is what I see every day from the Clinton forces — when they’re not trying to muzzle or shout down liberal opponents outright.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3033052/clintons-internet-troll-campaign-against-bernie-sanders-is-a-new-low/
Just because she’s going to be president is no reason for progressives to pretend she’s one of us.
And who are you to decide what deserves mocking? You’re the most mockable Clintonite here.
Trump is not just going after Sanders’ voters, he’s courting old Bernie himself.
I expect to hear about some Sanders’ role in a Trump administration.
And even a Trump-Sanders ticket would be no big surprise. Who else is Trump going to pick? Christie?? Yea…right…
“Yes, but for every demographic that is less likely to go for Clinton, there are others (e.g. Hispanics) who will be driven to the polls in greater number. ”
@LE That’s the great uncertainty isn’t it? I hope you are right. I don’t know how monolithic Hispanics are (or rather how monolithic Trump has caused them to be). I’m curious about how Trump addresses the Hispanic demographic, once he turns presidential, if he ever does.
@a “Where does mockery fit in the scientific method? And I don’t mean mockery added to reason, I mean mockery in its place.”
Mockery accomplishes two things (1) It demonstrates slight regard in an emphatic manner (2) It conveys the message that any idiot should be able to come up with their own reason and that there’s no need to spell it out.
This fits…
LE, you act like Sanders would accept such an invitation.
Trump should keep courting him until the media turns it’s attention so Sanders’ very firm and undisputed “fuck no, ass-hat” can be heard by the weak-willed among his supporters.
@B “LE, you act like Sanders would accept such an invitation.”
We’ll see. If Sanders doesn’t wholly repudiate Trump, then there could be real trouble.
If I was Trump, I’d be very busy offering Sanders the position of Secretary of the Department of Screw the 1% (DOSTOP).
Sanders has wholly and repeatedly repudiated Trump.
@j “Sanders has wholly and repeatedly repudiated Trump.”
Recently? Got a link?
I’m sure Sanders’ team is reading the news. So what are they doing?
The fact that you think that’s “just the right response” shows you’re just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else.
The fact that I think that it is just the right response means that article wasn’t much worth the space Salon gave to it. It is pretty choice to pretend ignorance of how Trump might think of Supreme Court nominees, but tell your readers that even though Clinton says who will appoint people who will overturn Citizen’s United, there’s no reason to trust her on that. Mainly she is it’s chief beneficiary — which certainly is not true — but the author also ignores that she’s the reason for that decision. The Hillary documentary they produced was classified as a campaign contribution and the Supreme Court used that to open the flood gates. The entire business is ridiculous — it gives Trump all kinds of generosity while providing none for Clinton. Clinton Derangement Syndrome — which you should recognize — and it still is nowhere near as artful or amusing as what the right can come up with.
Sanders has; but I think what people don’t necessarily get here is that “Sanders supporters” as a group do not precisely equate with “Sanders voters.”
One group is looking a policy; the other group is all about “outsidery” and anger.
The question is how the percentages fall among the voters. I’m obviously more pessimistic than you are.
I expect to hear about some Sanders’ role in a Trump administration.
He’s not going to do that, seriously. You can’t come anywhere close to understanding Sanders’ project if you think he would even be open to that.
“Sanders has wholly and repeatedly repudiated Trump.”
Mrs. Sanders is another story. She said on CNN today that she thinks the FBI ought to move the email investigation along. Nice double entendre.
@c “You can’t come anywhere close to understanding Sanders’ project if you think he would even be open to that.”
It’s not the project I’m worried about, it’s the man’s ego. We’ve seen it get the better of him a couple of times already.
No way does Sanders go with Trump. I. Can’t. Even.
I’m really trying to understand all the Trump fear, because if he’s really that capable of changing himself and the masses – who never intended on voting for him – suddenly vote for him (And remember these masses would have to include women and all minority groups in decent numbers) then he would win no matter who the Dems ran against him.
I’m 0% worried that Sanders would throw in with Trump. I’m only 5% worried that Trump could win, and that 5% is “crazy shit like Hillary falling off a stage can happen” 5%.
The prediction markets have Hillary at only 72%. If you’re so sure of your 95% value, there’s easy money to be made…
But I think that the market is about right. Hillary is not the slam dunk, and Democrats cannot become complacent.
And The GOP will use every trick they’ve got… and one of them is to prey on an old man’s ego. And his batty wife might just urge him to do it…
Hillary’s best move would be to try to pull Sanders into her team, somehow…
“The GOP will use every trick they’ve got… and one of them is to prey on an old man’s ego. And his batty wife might just urge him to do it…”
Come to think of it, Bill has been acting erratically lately.
I have always said anything can happen in a general election. That stands (because there are Rs who will always vote for Rs and the nominee will start with that base), and we shouldn’t take anything for granted, but…
When I read all the dire warnings about Trump I end up thinking that some people are crediting him with political skills never before seen. If that turns out to be true then, like I said, he would win against any Dem candidate, even Bernie. You simply cannot give him this never before seen ability (to completely reinvent himself, to co-op policies/positions, to suddenly appeal to women and minorities AND hold onto his current supporters) and then limit it. He either has it, or he doesn’t.
The reason Trump got this far is due to horrible R primary candidates. Not one of them took on his policies, because they didn’t want to discuss their policies. Go back and watch those debates. The R primary field simply wanted to go after Obama, not discuss their policies. Too bad they went up against a better name caller. That’s why Trump won – that and he ditched the R dog whistle and went flat-out racist, bigot, sexist which must have been refreshing for the R base.
‘I have always said anything can happen in a general election.”
Very true, which is why no one can afford to be complacent.
“The reason Trump got this far is due to horrible R primary candidates. ”
Partially true. But Trump also got where he is because he is an entertainer, a showman. Look at the media who fawned all over him for ratings. He didn’t have to spend a dime.
And consider all the misanthropes who would love to see the Trump disaster unfold. Plus all the others who would like nothing more than see the collapse of our institutions so they can become sovereign or whatever.
I don’t credit him with any skills except the ability to make deals and the ability to mesmerize people whose information fed to them through television or social media. I’m hoping people will decide they don’t like the show anymore and switch the channel. Basically, I’m counting on their fickleness and short attention span. Doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in the outcome but it’s all I got.
“The reason Trump got this far is due to horrible R primary candidates. ”
Partially true. But Trump also got where he is because he is an entertainer, a showman. Look at the media who fawned all over him for ratings. He didn’t have to spend a dime.”
He got to be the entertainer because not one R candidate discussed issues and policy, instead they played on Trump’s turf and tried to out-Trump Trump. Not one of them challenged him on his policies beyond mocking them. They laughed at his wall, but wouldn’t (couldn’t) have an immigration policy discussion because they agreed with him. Same with economics, social issues, etc.
Trump wins if, and only if, he brings a good portion of women and minorities to his side. There are not enough white men (and be sure to exclude white men who would never vote for Trump) for him to win. I feel like we’re back to math again.
@pandora //some people are crediting him with political skills never before seen//
No, but he has exercised a particular skill at knowing his audience and manipulating the media. Running by the seat of his pants, making gaffes all over the place, he has still piled up millions of votes and has a legit shot at the first ballot.
But this //to suddenly appeal to women// is somewhat a misstatement of the situation. According to CBA news here’s the breakdown among women
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-donald-trump-right-that-women-voters-dont-like-hillary-clinton/?google_editors_picks=true
Trump favorable: 19%; Trump unfavorable: 69%
Clinton favorable: 37%; Clinton unfavorable: 45%
Against any normal candidate, especially for a woman, Clinton’s numbers would be considered the sign of a weak candidate.
To be honest I suspect both candidates will do significantly better with women closer to the General election, especially as this was a poll of “registered” vs “likely” voters and I cannot find the internals.
Trump’s number among women, I strongly suspect, based on the hard-line GOP base he will inherit, will get up to the mid- to high- 20s, and that’s problematic for Clinton because her numbers don’t suggest a strong, positive turn-out.
And this–//I feel like we’re back to math again.//
It’s always been math. And somewhere on some other thread that I can’t remember I have advanced Trump’s most likely route to winning. It is improbable but not impossible.
And here’s the difference: back when we started our little GOP campaign horserace not one of us–not one–political junkies all–considered Trump even likely enough to get in the race to use a throwaway fourth pick on him. And whoever had picked him would have been (at least initially) laughed at quite thoroughly.
The primary is not the general. And those millions of votes (approx. 10 mil) were cast by who? Did those millions of voters have something in common? Did they, perchance, look alike? 😉
Oh I am not arguing that they were not overwhelming white, but I suspect that more than 19% of them were male.
Nonetheless, there remains the question of Clinton’s objective weakness as a candidate–and when you’ve got somebody with her resume under 50% on general favorables (which many polls have shown) and well under 50% on women, you’ve got a weak candidate.
All we had were flawed candidates this year so, I guess, we were always going to be here. Guess we better get our act together – and it’s really not women or minorities that concern me.
Any discussion of the General and who votes there needs to be focused on the swing states. The Electoral map math is where the game moves to and both will need to bag swing states to win. There’s a reason why candidates “pivot to the middle” once they nail down their nominations. Mainly what’s at stake then are independent, suburban women. But at the end it works out to whether Trump can turn out enough angry white guys who will outvote the women and minorities that the GOP already knows they have challenges with. GOP pundits are already wringing their hands over the fact that Trump won’t help them downticket and is why others are noting the favorable landscape for the Ds to take back the Senate. That’s coattails and there is no expectation that Trump will have them, while Clinton should.
@c “Any discussion of the General and who votes there needs to be focused on the swing states.”
It also needs to focus on the money. Will Hillary start to rake in money like Bernie did? Will the 1% share shoveling money at Trump, or will their funds go down-ballot?
A lot of what happens will depend on these answers…
p.s. just today donated $500 to DSSC and to HRC in time for end of month reporting… feels good.
Trump, even assuming he wins the GOP nomination, is not going to be running as a Republican.
He’s an independent candidate who has potentially successfully hijacked the ballot access of a major political party.
As a Sanders supporter, I can’t think of one, one, Sanders voter who would vote for Trump.
I HOPE Trump ‘goes after’ Sanders’ voters. It’ll be a total waste of time.
Hillary has to woo Sanders voters. But not b/c they might vote for Trump, but b/c they might otherwise stay home. It’s not the same thing.
He’s an independent candidate who has potentially successfully hijacked the ballot access of a major political party
I agree with that. Although the hijacking was facilitated by the party pretty much calling it quits.
//the hijacking was facilitated by the party pretty much calling it quits.//
That would be about the only time you could get away with it, wouldn’t it?
I just don’t understand why they allowed a fully stuffed clown car of bad candidates. It’s a recipe for disaster every time.
Because all they have left as constituents are clowns. The sane Republicans are all independents now.
Hey, if it wasn’t for the rude racist game show rhetoric, the birther thing, the support of torture and lack of knowledge on basic issues, I would vote for the guy