Ah...found it. The post-mortem.

RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion but No Policy Change - ABC News

A few choice tidbits from what the party leaders thought back then...

And then their voters gave them Donald Trump.

And then their voters told them to build that wall.

And then their voters gave hearty approval to the candidate who kicks anyone with an opposing view out of his rallies.

In short, the GOP leadership had a plan in place to do just what Dutch is mentioning, but the voters said "HELL NO" to that plan.

Love that the unskewed polls are back.

All of that leads me to believe that the GOP are completely out of touch with their base. It's like they've built a monster they can't control.

Thanks for the numbers Ben, didn't think it was that bad for Romney, but with the right candidate this time around, I think those numbers would have improved for R's.

Yep - see Stage 12 in the Vox article (which links to the Growth and Opportunity Project plan).

"12) Republican elites try to back immigration reform — but get backlash from their voters"


But you know, they were all RINOs anyway.

I don't know if Trump has done anything to directly upset Asian-American's yet other than maybe being anti-immigration in general. But with Trump being much more friendly. But even with Trump being much more friendly towards gay rights than the GOP in general the party manage to put forward their least LGBT friendly platform in history. Just a bang up job of outreach through and through.

Which is why so many Republicans are on board with "Dump Trump". He is overtly catering to the folks that would have his vote anyway. But that leaves out a lot of the center-right...the pseudo-cons if that pleases some(!).

I think the problem is that if the party at the national (i.e. highly visible) level makes a tack towards inclusiveness (better for the long term), the working class whites are going to make them pay for it in the short term. This is why the post-mortem's recommendations were not implemented: there's no tolerance to essentially give up an election or two (and the Senate or even the House) while you expand the size of your tent.

Yes yes - if they tack that way they may get primaried, so they can't do it.

The Political Process Isn’t Rigged — It Has Much Bigger Problems | FiveThirtyEight

I don't think they're necessarily "out of touch" with their base. I think they are well aware of the base. The problem is that the GOP Leadership and the voters have different goals. The leadership wants to win elections. The voters want their preferred ideology to be represented in the general election, even if that would mean losing.

Bush got 70% of the Muslim vote in 2000 (80% of non-African American Muslims). The Muslim population used be a reliable voting bloc for the party too.

Giving up an election or three while diminishing the size of the tent also doesn't seem like a good plan.

Here are the polls from last week (i.e. convention bounce for Clinton) - all numbers are Clinton's lead (national):

+5
+1
+5
+8
+5
+9
+6

Here are the polls from this week - all numbers also Clinton's lead (national):

+3
+4
+15
+10
+9

538:


For the record, I'm sufficiently giddy with excitement as a Democratic partisan that I've lost all sense of objectivity and have abandoned my usual "cautiously optimistic but Democrats will figure out how to fuck it up" mindset.

So, uh, ignore me more than usual? :D

Anecdotally, the "Supreme Court" argument among conservatives who can't stand Trump but intended to vote for him anyway may be starting to erode as well. I am already hearing some chatter that basically goes "I was going to vote for him just to have a chance to put conservatives in the Supreme Court, but with the lack of self-control he is showing lately, controlling the Court won't matter if he has a temper tantrum and starts a nuclear war."

If HRC somehow manages to lose this one to Trump, she will be the biggest choke artist in history.

This is a problem the party was facing whether or not Trump was going to be the nominee. Just take a look at these numbers for white voters...

Bush 60, Dukakis 40
Romney 59, Obama 39

The difference? In 1988, white voters made up 85% of the electorate. In 2012, they made up 72%. That number will be even lower this year.

I still think a big terrorist attack in Sept. or Oct. changes everything.

Just like in sports, I never get too confident, even with a big lead, because I've watched my teams collapse too many times. That being said, watching Trump and his followers self-destruct has been a joy.

We have a guy in our town whose lawn is littered with Trump signs, All Lives Matter signs, Blue Lives Matter signs... I want to add one that says Lawn Mowing Matters.

At the rate he's going, such an event could push people even further away from Trump:


Former Director of the CIA Michael Morrell.

There was a guy in our neighborhood who complained to the HOA about campaign signs going missing from his yard. He told them if he caught someone removing them that he would, quote, "shoot to kill", that he was "not kidding", and "heavily armed".

The county sheriff also lives in the neighborhood, and the guy got a talking to about appropriate levels of response. In the end, it turned out that he just wasn't anchoring them enough and they were getting blown away.

I honestly think it hurts him more.

I think his best hope is to only talk about the economy and hope some crap happens with it over the next few months.

Yeah, flere. That's precisely the thinking that may be starting to filter to even Rubio and Cruz supporters. Personally, I've been firmly in the third party camp since the day Trump secured the nomination. I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate, and because of abortion, it's extremely unlikely that I ever will. That being said, particularly after last week, if I were forced to choose between Trump and HRC only, I would have to pick HRC, because I think it's more likely that his temper and lack of self-control would cause the death of more people than the possible lives of the unborn that his Supreme Court nominations might save some day IF that day were ever to come.

In short, I couldn't vote to give the nuclear codes to this man.

Furthermore, let's not forget that little discussion that I bumped in the Republican thread. It's not a zero-sum situation between now and a hypothetical September/October terrorist attack. He has a solid month or two between now and then to say and do more stupid stuff. ;) Seriously, what's more likely--that he will start acting "Presidential" during that time, or that as he continues to trail HRC, he'll display even more behavior that will cause people to view him as truly dangerous? And there's a fair chance that he'd say or tweet something incredibly stupid in the aftermath of said attack that would remind people of why his response impulses cannot be trusted.

By September/October, I'm thinking that it will take an attack that was proven to be directly linked to a terrorist group hacking HRC's personal email server at that point.

I think if WikiLinks comes out with more Clinton emails, like they have threatened, I think that could get her in trouble with voters. Just depends how many days until the election at that point to see if she can recover from it enough.

I think if WikiLeaks had anything of value they'd post it. Assange is a blowhard who boasts inconsequential leaks on a regular basis.

Yep. In addition, when I posted there that I didn't think a Trump nomination was a potential disaster for the GOP, but a Trump Presidency certainly was, it was in part due to my supposition that if you get 4 years of a Trump Presidency you get a GOP that's re-branded as a Trump Party. One would presume that's a party that would tend to struggle, nationwide. Of course that's a chicken-and-egg thing because in such a scenario the Trump Party has already won at least one nationwide election.

I figured an actual Trump Presidency would entail a highly-laissez-faire POTUS who more-or-less rubberstamped stuff coming out of Ryan's House. Hence (at the time) the GOP leadership was OK to consider this as an outcome because it was good for them.

What we've learned is that that's probably not what a Trump Presidency looks like. Instead of it being a Jesse Ventura-like aberration it's something that completely re-brands the party (as it's doing now, even with just the nomination).

He held on to those emails from the DNC and Schultz until the day of the convention. It's cost at least four people from the DNC to lose their jobs so far, and nearly disrupted the whole convention. He could be waiting to say the first debate to maximise the chaos.

Do possible leaks have diminishing returns though? The first one did raise a little bit of a stir. The one with audio clips barely seemed to register. At what point does the public go "ah, this fucking guy again?"

At least two that are dead now as well.

I think it depends on what's in them.

I had not heard that, how horrible.

I have yet to see it on a major news site but the man who served the DNC with court papers died three days ago and was supposedly found on his bathroom floor.

This ad is pretty good.

What is Donald Trump's connection to Vladimir Putin? | The Briefing - YouTube

Didn't the new leaks come out right when Donald Trump decided it would be a good idea to get into a pissing match with the parents of a dead soldier, which kinda pushed the whole audio thing below the fold?

I heard one talking head on one of the major news networks quip that if DJT had just gone on vacation without Twitter or ability to talk to the news channels right when the DNC began, he might still be leading now. I'm not so sure he's wrong.

I'd rather him be completely honest and transparent. And if his honesty is this kind of theatrics, were better off knowing about it now. Winning is only important if winning means something good.

Jill Stein Didn’t Want You Dumb Old Bernie Voters Anyway

He also said France deserved the terrorist attack. He has this crazy blog that he is deleting the crazy stuff from the last couple days.

I don't understand the purpose of this reply, unless maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say there. It was a comment on just how poorly he has done himself. From *his* perspective, *he* would have been better off had he just kept his mouth shut entirely for two weeks.

On another note, new poll with voters under 30...

Clinton: 41%
Johnson: 23%
Stein: 16%
Teh Donald: 9%

A new poll has Trump in fourth — behind Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein — with young people - The Washington Post

Wait! Are you trying to tell me teh Donald ain't exactly popular with the bruthas??? :confused:

Some good ones this weekend from Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson: Trump watching Olympics to see how high Mexican pole vaulters go | TheHill

Gary Johnson Zings Donald Trump: Unlike You, I Won't Deport Melania

Hilarious, but he might want to stick to watching the high jump.

Johnson's entire career has been centered around watching the high, whether they jump, lie down, or eat snacks.

LOL. I actually meant Trump, since the high jumpers would be able to clear just about any wall that he'd come close to building. The real question is if it would be consider treason for me to teach potential immigrants the Fosbury Flop.

At seemingly every point in this election, we have been tempted to say things like "well, we used to think THAT, but NOW... clearly, we know THIS..."

So, right now we seem to have a "feel" for this general election. After the conventions and some seemingly self-destructive Trump behavior. But we should listen to ourselves...

"Well, back when there were 110 days to go in the election, we thought it was shaping up as close, but NOW that it's 96 days to go, we KNOW this thing is basically over."

Stop it.

There is plenty of time for not just one or two events or cycles that potentially shape the election -- but five or six. We're right to consider a terrorist event of some magnitude... but news events are simply far less predictable than that. The next thing could be a 600-point drop in the Dow Jones, or another LGBT issue flare-up, or something from Wikileaks, or some oddball TV commercial spot, or something that someone from the Cabinet says, or ... who the hell knows what?

This is basically a truly complex system. Right now, we can make projections based on what we have in hand -- and that's fine and plenty entertaining. But the list of things that could change the landscape materially is a really long one.

If this were Trump vs Duke, I'd agree with ya. But this one's over.

It probably ended when Rubio got knocked out. The only plausible battles were between Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Rubio and I don't believe for a second anybody was going to get motivated for Bush. But it didn't matter when, Trump decimated Bush and Christie decimated Rubio with party in-fighting at the personality level.

As long as the Democratic party is in charge of one of the candidates, it's never over.

Meh. I'm pretty optimistic, but there could be something that changes the basis of the election. I don't see what it is, but I now it could happen.

Actually, now that I think about it, one thing that could happen is that between "Trump Foot In Mouth Fatigue", and good poll numbers now, the D's get complacent and try to "expand the map", using resources elsewhere, and then some unknown event happens and creates a swing back to trump. I mean, we have ninety some odd days left, and what can Trump do that would top the recent insanity (Trump, please don't take that as a challenge)

I still think the GOP should have had a bracket.

Chuckled at the below ... Hillary is alot of things but mentally unfit doesn't quite describe her but Trump on the other hand ...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/politi...short-circuit/

A surprise to me as GA has always seemed to be a strong red state.

Poll: Clinton leads Trump in Georgia - POLITICO

GA voted for Bill Clinton, had a democrat governor, and democrat senator about 12 years ago.

Let me just chime in with one comment.

In my opinion a lot of the Hillary haters did this to themselves by backing Trump. In all honesty did you really think Trump could beat Hillary heads up without the full support of the republicans? I wish 7-8 months ago one of the true republican candidates could have stepped up and knocked Trump out of the way so the race didnt end up this way.

The quicker Hillary's backers stop pointing to Trump every time Hillary makes a mistake, the better off they and their candidate's campaign will be. For all of Trump's faults, Hillary has a giant rain cloud that will continue to hang over her head regarding the e-mails. She keeps insisting on addressing the situation like a lawyer (which she is). She'd be much better off addressing the situation directly and simply admitting that she screwed up.

The electorate is generally forgiving of silly statements or dumb decisions. They are not very forgiving of people who continue to lie and deceive about those statements or decisions despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

She's up like 7 points.

Personally I think Hillary is doing things perfectly to win this election. Deflect off to Trump and have him put his foot in his mouth whenever given the opportunity. Trump had already won the support of people wanting "change" but in order to win he needs to touch base with undecided's. Making himself look foolish on a regular basis isnt turning these people his way.

The people who are not voting for her based on her emails will be just as unlikely to vote for her if she apologizes and admits a screw up (which she essentially has, admitting it was not a very good idea). All it will do is initiate another round of hearings in which we spend more money to come to the exact same conclusions.

takes one to know one I guess :)

Trump gets another "endorsement" that he probably doesn't want:

Leader of American Nazi Party: Trump win will be ‘a real opportunity’ for us

If the election is a referendum on Trump, Hillary wins. If it isn't, she may lose.

So....the communist party of America endorsed Hillary. Did you read about that too?

No I did not. seems strange to endorse a democrat.

I don't get this statement at all. When the two candidates are historically unpopular, it would certainly seem to me that the best argument is "don't forget how awful the other one is!"

That is particularly true with the concern about Stein and Johnson. Both sides *need* to use fear of the other primary option to keep their softer supporters in the fold.

lmao!

Well the leader said he'd vote for Clinton.

I think the point is that nutjobs who have no power in this world should not have their endorsements taken seriously. Or viewed as a negative for the candidate who has no control over it. Both sides have extremists who routinely endorse the same party each election.

Exactly the point. Thanks. :)

The election in a nutshell:
If it's about Hillary, Trump wins
If it's about Trump, Hillary wins
& both candidates want it to be about Trump

— Charles Lipson (@Charles_Lipson) August 7, 2016

I don't think it's a big deal in itself that the Nazi party leader endorses a particular candidate. There's no doubt murderers and child rapists who vote for mainstream candidates, so what. It's more the insight that the Nazi leader believes that Trump "would be a real opportunity for white nationalists", and the fact that that's true. A president who has outwardly racist views could definitely be a real game-charger for a greater societal acceptance of racism and the policies of groups like that.

Trump announced his tax plan today. I like his business tax idea but not a fan of the child-care credit or repeal of the Estate tax. Also his personal income tax rates are way too low and would add a ton to the national debt.

I like that you think the two are in any way equivalent.

Communists have killed more people.

Not in this country bud.

Today, Trump gave an economic speech and stayed on point, despite the fact that he was interrupted by protesters.

If he can do that for a few weeks (stay on message, not punch down at his critics), the race will tighten.

if he's not done in by his own party that is:

50 top GOP officials: Trump would 'risk our country's national security' - POLITICO

Anti-Trump Republican Evan McMullin to launch independent bid for presidency - POLITICO

McMullin is also a Mormon so Utah is up for grabs I guess. He missed the deadline to make the ballot in several states, so not sure what his goal is here.

Only a few hours later though.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the U.S. because of Hillary Clinton's hacked emails."

If he wants to make a race of this, I think he has to make it about economics. He should never talk about foreign policy unless he has to. Constantly make this race about how the middle and working class are getting screwed over in this country and how he'll fix it.

The only time I actually like Trump is when he talks about the crappy trade deals we have. That should be his campaign.

Many people are saying you shouldn't be President too Donald, which ones do we believe?

I like his full tax deduction for child care. That'll do quite a bit to wipe out the income tax I pay. :D

But does little if you make median income or less.

Yeah it's mainly for rich people to write off their nannies.

It baffles me that i constantly read about 2 things:

1) Trump tries to appeal to "the regular folks"
2) His business plan heavily favors you the richer you are (or the bigger the business)

Am i reading one of those wrong ? Otherwise i´ll admit it doesn´t make any sense to me.

No. That's pretty accurate.

But that economic plan worked for GWB, so who knows.

It's pretty common in politics. Make a tax cut for the rich and throw a bone to everyone else to get them on board. In this case people likely don't realize how little (if any) tax savings this will provide.

Any deficit hawks here want to explain how they can support a plan that will add @700 billion per year?

But shouldn't that screw up the state finances and the public sector overall ? (which is a pretty big employer, not to even speak of necessary expenses, social or otherwise). Which in return at some point will bite a ton of people in their ass again ?

It seems to be twofold:

1) Mormons are virulently anti-Trump because the community is young enough to identify with victims of religious persecution. Even Romney's experiences four years ago are enough to make them think that anyone spouting religious purity messages may mean they are somewhere on the purge list. Plus, Mexico is the second largest LDS population in the world. There is even prophecy within the church (the "White Horse") that some think may be applicable in this election. Trump likely needs Utah and Arizona to win, and denying him these states by finding another more palatable candidate than Trump or Clinton may fulfill the prophecy.

2) Gary Johnson is running close to 15% in some polls, and with support that high in at least three states would be added to the national debate podium. McMullin may be running as an independent, but he's still GOP, and may be doing this as a smoke screen to blunt Johnson's support, since a sustained Libertarian candidacy might splift the Republican party in two.

He's clearly some sort of spoiler as there's no way he'll get on enough ballots to win.

So the GOP would rather have a 6-3 disadvantage in the Supreme Court than have Trump win?

What a messed up party.

They are.

Not unless they've changed the rules in the last few days.

As I posted up the thread somewhere, it's "at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination."

As well as, "in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College"

edit to add: I haven't seen a list for 2016 but "In 2012, the polls relied upon were: ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News and Gallup."

double edit: As of the latest I find on RCP, those same polls (not certain to be the ones for this cycle however)
ABC - Johnson 8, NBC - Johnson 10 (Gallup may be sitting this one out, I don't see CBS or Fox currently having any 4-way results). The RCP average is 8.2

That's my point. Our household earns over 6 times the median income. We can afford child care (not nannies, in our case), but this kind of deduction would seriously reduce our annual tax bill. Great for us, but I would expect pretty terrible for tax revenues.

Many people are saying Donald Trump won't release his tax returns because he donates to NAMBLA.

Let's not start that crap over here, see it enough over on Reddit :P

The liar vs. the straight talker:


Donald Trump embraces fundraising, not transparency - POLITICO

If Trump doesn't donate to NAMBLA, then why doesn't he release his taxes?

had not heard of the White Horse prophecy before-yet another reason religion needs to stay far away from politics. #2 I can buy more-are Mormons not in favor of the Libetarian platform?

Orlando shooter's father attends Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee - wptv.com

Both are garbage, I guess I just see Nazism as so much worse because it's followers are racist inbred mouth breathing idiots.

Glad the meme community is picking up on this-its how he justifies his arguments without ever saying who the many people are-drives me crazy.

Twitter Users Hilariously Troll Trump With #ManyPeopleAreSaying Meme

The communist big red workers machine killed millions of Jews and anti-communists under Stalin.