Anxiety over Trump cuts into House Republicans' support

[dunroaming]

This must be the most bizarre election in American history

[thaihome]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

I concede that erosion of democracy by stealth is possible without sufficient checks, balances and watchdogs but can bombastic speech, insults, populist and contradictory assumptions make a fascist? Trump would have to plan to overthrow democracy, by-pass Congress, censor the Press, control the judiciary, suspend the rule of law, tear up the Constitution and take over the armed forces. Then he would have to exile any opposition including the Clintons and Obama.

I don't see Trump supporters as fascists but simply people who have been abandoned by both the Dems and the Reps, whose wages have stagnated for decades and without fascist supporters Trump can never be a dictator. It is up to the 2 major parties to address the concerns of the supporters of Trump but they haven't to date and it's now probably too late and the result is Trump, as irrational as it may seem to you but to me quite a logical sequence of events.

Well, let's see...he can bypass Congress by Executive Order, he has already stated that he plans to change the libel laws so that he can sue the press (censorship by intimidation), he WILL control the judiciary by appointment, the President can declare martial law at any time for any reason (which suspends the rule of law and would have the effect of tearing up the Constitution), and has stated that, "the military will obey me". Seems fairly clear to me.

OK I am not an American so with respect if you are and you are right then all you say is available to Obama as well? Or any President for that matter.

No, none of that is available. It is a fantasy.

TH

[Pinot]

Democrats nationally in 2012 got 1 million more total votes for the House of Representatives than the Republican candidates got. Yet the R party retained its majority no sweat.

Gerrymandering in Republican party controlled states saved their weak or otherwise vulnerable R's in the House.

Prof. Larry J. Sabato of the U of VA Center for Politics, who has yet to make a wrong call in Potus elections, says there needs to be a 7-point swing nationally for the D party to defeat gerrymandered Republicans in the House.

HRC leads Trump in the polling averages by 11 percent. That's enough to overcome gerrymandering in the House. Which is why Speaker Ryan is doing all he can in moderate ways to separate both himself and the House R's from Trump leading the R party into oblivion the general election.

Ryan clearly wants out of his role as chairman of the national convention at Cleveland in July. Ryan does not want to be seen on tv all the time presiding over the Trump wildness and have Americans connect Speaker Ryan the Republican to the Republican House member running in their local district, cause it will drag down the Republican. The Republicans.

Prof Sabato notes D's need a net gain of 30 seats to take back majority control of the US House. Sabato and his team figure that presently 15 R's are in tough reelection races back home, and that another 19 R's are on the ropes with their voters back home. That's 34 endangered species House R party seats since Trump emerged as the (presumptive) nominee.

The R party majority by 4 in the Senate is pretty much gonzo already. Several R party senators in "safe" R seats are now tied with their D party opponents, to include McCain in AZ, Burr in NC, Blount in MO among others. The three states are Red states that are beginning to look Purple.

The most vulnerable R senators up for reelection are the 6 in Blue states, to include Kirk in IL, Johnson in WI, Rubio's open seat in Purple FL, Portman in OH, Toomey in PA, Ayotte in NH. All of 'em are suffering the cold sweats as the polling data come in week after week, month after month.

D party open seats are either safe or favored for the D running in each of 'em, in CA, NV, MD. Incumbent D's up for reelection in Blue states remain safe, as with Bennett in Purple CO.

Voters look like they're fixin to clear the decks.

Thank you Publicus. Concise appraisal of exactly where we are...with no bullshit. Republicans are deservedly screwed.

All Trumpeteers and the rest of you Republicans (two different entities) should take note, this is where things stand today. You're about to lose everything and above all else...the Supreme Court.

We are on the cusp of fundamental changes in America.

[thaihome]

Democrats nationally in 2012 got 1 million more total votes for the House of Representatives than the Republican candidates got. Yet the R party retained its majority no sweat.

Gerrymandering in Republican party controlled states saved their weak or otherwise vulnerable R's in the House.

Prof. Larry J. Sabato of the U of VA Center for Politics, who has yet to make a wrong call in Potus elections, says there needs to be a 7-point swing nationally for the D party to defeat gerrymandered Republicans in the House.

HRC leads Trump in the polling averages by 11 percent. That's enough to overcome gerrymandering in the House. Which is why Speaker Ryan is doing all he can in moderate ways to separate both himself and the House R's from Trump leading the R party into oblivion the general election.

Ryan clearly wants out of his role as chairman of the national convention at Cleveland in July. Ryan does not want to be seen on tv all the time presiding over the Trump wildness and have Americans connect Speaker Ryan the Republican to the Republican House member running in their local district, cause it will drag down the Republican. The Republicans.

Prof Sabato notes D's need a net gain of 30 seats to take back majority control of the US House. Sabato and his team figure that presently 15 R's are in tough reelection races back home, and that another 19 R's are on the ropes with their voters back home. That's 34 endangered species House R party seats since Trump emerged as the (presumptive) nominee.

The R party majority by 4 in the Senate is pretty much gonzo already. Several R party senators in "safe" R seats are now tied with their D party opponents, to include McCain in AZ, Burr in NC, Blount in MO among others. The three states are Red states that are beginning to look Purple.

The most vulnerable R senators up for reelection are the 6 in Blue states, to include Kirk in IL, Johnson in WI, Rubio's open seat in Purple FL, Portman in OH, Toomey in PA, Ayotte in NH. All of 'em are suffering the cold sweats as the polling data come in week after week, month after month.

D party open seats are either safe or favored for the D running in each of 'em, in CA, NV, MD. Incumbent D's up for reelection in Blue states remain safe, as with Bennett in Purple CO.

Voters look like they're fixin to clear the decks.

Thank you Publicus. Concise appraisal of exactly where we are...with no bullshit. Republicans are deservedly screwed.

All Trumpeteers and the rest of you Republicans (two different entities) should take note, this is where things stand today. You're about to lose everything and above all else...the Supreme Court.

We are on the cusp of fundamental changes in America.

I wouldn't get too euphoric. Rembember the last time the republicanS lost in a landslide, 4 years later Nixon was elected.

TH

[Traveler19491]

OK I am not an American so with respect if you are and you are right then all you say is available to Obama as well? Or any President for that matter.

No, none of that is available. It is a fantasy.

TH

You really should research before posting a response like that. It reveals a gross lack of understanding of the workings of the government, and construct of the US Constitution. Obama has been (unjustifiably) accused of abusing Executive Orders to bypass Congress. The power of the Executive Order does not need the approval of Congress, and is one way to supersede Congress, at least on a temporary basis. Trump has stated his intent to change the libel laws in America to make it easier for him to go after the press. He would have to go through Congress to change the law, so it's not probable, but neither is it impossible. The President DOES have considerable power to control the judiciary by means of his power to appoint judges. Why do you think the Republicans are so riled about the current Supreme Court vacancy? And the President DOES have the power to declare martial law. Check the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. The Supreme Court has interpreted that section as giving the President power to declare martial law (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/martial_law.aspx). Lastly, when Trump stated that he would, if elected, order the military to target terrorists' families, the former director of both the CIA and NSA, Michael Hayden, opined that the military would refuse, as such an order would be illegal. Trump responded, “I’m a leader, I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

The fact is that, to date, American Presidents have been, for the most part, extremely cautious about their use of the incredible power that they wield. However, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is ill informed, temperamental, given to a lack of self control, and has a distinct penchant for surrounding himself with "yes" people. To hand someone like that the amount of power that comes with the Oval Office could easily become a means for him to seriously abuse such power.

[Publicus]

Maybe the GOP Bosses will piss off Trump enough to make him run as an Indy. Then Sanders follows suit . That would be much more fun

It is already past the deadline in more than half the states to qualify to get on the ballot in the 50 states. Each state decides on its own ballot, subject to being consistent with the US Constitution.

So the only options available to run as an independent is to run a write-in campaign in the 50 states, or in any number of states; and/or to get the nomination for Potus of a minor political party in a state, such as the Libertarian party, or the Conservative party where a minor party exists (in a limited number of states) such as one does in New York state (which also has a Conservative Party and also a Liberal Party among other minor parties).

The election of Potus is 50 elections in 50 states because each state runs its own election by its own laws. A state's laws must be consistent with the Constitution so there is a national standard in this respect. However, a state's election laws are set by the state. Each of the 50 of 'em.

Somebody running as an independent for Potus needed to set out on that course months ago and be completely focused on it. Almost every state has a "sore loser" election law that makes it virtually impossible for someone who loses the nomination contest in May or June to suddenly run viably as an independent.

Nobody likes a spoiler whose only purpose is to try to deny a major party nominee the 270 Electoral College votes to win because, in such an instance, the decision goes to the US House of Representatives. Nobody in his right mind wants the US House to choose our Potus. And after the year 2000 Potus election fiasco, nobody in a Constitutionally faithful state of mind wants Scotus to again usurp the election of our Potus.

If the US might get a 3-party circumstance out of this election, then that would be the result of the natural course of events as expressed by the voters themselves, and that would be just fine thx.

[amja]

Think one can hope for low balwony railings at Trump tower!

Amja

[Publicus]

Trump is a wild man radical crackpot.

I'm beginning to consider that he's worse than the uniquely American Mussolini he started out as being. More like a Francisco Franco.

Let him get state power and he'll really go berzerk.

I concede that erosion of democracy by stealth is possible without sufficient checks, balances and watchdogs but can bombastic speech, insults, populist and contradictory assumptions make a fascist? Trump would have to plan to overthrow democracy, by-pass Congress, censor the Press, control the judiciary, suspend the rule of law, tear up the Constitution and take over the armed forces. Then he would have to exile any opposition including the Clintons and Obama.

I don't see Trump supporters as fascists but simply people who have been abandoned by both the Dems and the Reps, whose wages have stagnated for decades and without fascist supporters Trump can never be a dictator. It is up to the 2 major parties to address the concerns of the supporters of Trump but they haven't to date and it's now probably too late and the result is Trump, as irrational as it may seem to you but to me quite a logical sequence of events.

This poster has consistently identified Donald Trump as a uniquely American Mussolini. Trump is the first one, certainly the first one to get this far, i.e., the nomination of a major political party for the office of Potus.

Trump however is not literally Mussolini and the present time is not anything like the interlude between the two great world wars of the 20th century. However, the strongman reactionary extra-constitutional leader who is an anti-social psychopath ignoramus also applies to Trump

The present state of corporate bigness began during the Reagan years and it has since been driving globalisation of markets and of trade. The election of Barack Obama -- twice -- sent the wingnuts off the deep end starting with the tea party whackjobs. Both these factors make the developments and events of this election season uniquely American.

Trump does not need to invade Ethiopia (whatever) to define himself as the uniquely American Mussolini, nor do his fans need to start wearing armbands (whatever). Trump simply needs to continue to do what Donald Trump has been doing, i.e., to be Donald Trump.

The uniquely American Mussolini.

Kindly notice I have not used the word 'fascist'. If the word might apply to Trump and to his fans, it too would be a uniquely American construct and manifestation.

I do however see the Trump campaign for Potus to be the equivalent of Mussolini's March on Rome. It certainly is not the traditional campaign for Potus come to town when the band leads the parade down Main Street and where you knew that if your side lost the election it wasn't the end of American civilisation.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Publicus

[thaihome]

OK I am not an American so with respect if you are and you are right then all you say is available to Obama as well? Or any President for that matter.

No, none of that is available. It is a fantasy.

TH

You really should research before posting a response like that. It reveals a gross lack of understanding of the workings of the government, and construct of the US Constitution. Obama has been (unjustifiably) accused of abusing Executive Orders to bypass Congress. The power of the Executive Order does not need the approval of Congress, and is one way to supersede Congress, at least on a temporary basis. Trump has stated his intent to change the libel laws in America to make it easier for him to go after the press. He would have to go through Congress to change the law, so it's not probable, but neither is it impossible. The President DOES have considerable power to control the judiciary by means of his power to appoint judges. Why do you think the Republicans are so riled about the current Supreme Court vacancy? And the President DOES have the power to declare martial law. Check the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. The Supreme Court has interpreted that section as giving the President power to declare martial law (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/martial_law.aspx). Lastly, when Trump stated that he would, if elected, order the military to target terrorists' families, the former director of both the CIA and NSA, Michael Hayden, opined that the military would refuse, as such an order would be illegal. Trump responded, Im a leader, Ive always been a leader. Ive never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, theyre going to do it.

The fact is that, to date, American Presidents have been, for the most part, extremely cautious about their use of the incredible power that they wield. However, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is ill informed, temperamental, given to a lack of self control, and has a distinct penchant for surrounding himself with "yes" people. To hand someone like that the amount of power that comes with the Oval Office could easily become a means for him to seriously abuse such power.

You need to read your own link. You stated "the President can declare martial law at any time for any reason (which suspends the rule of law and would have the effect of tearing up the Constitution". Your own link states:

"However, Congress initially refused to ratify Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This refusal created friction between Congress and the president and raised the question of whether unilateral suspension of the writ under martial law was within the president's power. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue and ruled in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) (No. 487), that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus"

Every action the president makes in regard to martial law must be approved by Congress and is subject to Supreme Court review.

Trump cannot unilaterally change libel laws. Congress would have to do that and again, the Supreme Court can review for constitutionality.

The president does indeed have huge power, but the ability to become a dictator is not amoung them. The framers were well aware of the power of demogues and built in checks and balances to prevent someone just like Trump usurping the government.

The problems with this election are bad enough without indulging in untruthful fear mongering.

TH

[Prbkk]

The GOP's so divided and screwed up, I don't see how Billary can lose.

Hilary is so on the nose with voters that it is entirely conceivable that Trump could win. We will see a modified Trump over the next few months and don't be surprised if this goes to the wire. Anyone but Clinton could probably win by a reasonable margin, including Nancy Pelosi.

[mrwebb8825]

I wonder if it would even be possible for the POTUS to stage/order a coup and effectively replace all members of both houses with military personal under his direct command. After all, when you join the military, you swear to defend the country against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

It's never happened in the history of the US. The closest thing would be the ousting of British rule and later, the civil war. Both were lead by a sitting president using the military/militia to gain/regain total control of the country followed by the appointment of like-minded statesmen.

The 1st instance gave us the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the 2nd violated both without reprisal as it was for the betterment of the entire country.

It seems to me that presidential power is only limited by the president wielding it at the time. Convince enough people to agree with you and you can do pretty much anything you like. Look at Clinton/Obama in Libya, Bush in Iraq, Reagan in Panama and Iran. The list goes on and on with Vietnam, Korea, Europe, etc.

Something to think about as we move into the era of President Trump.

Edited May 12, 2016 by mrwebb8825

[Traveler19491]

OK I am not an American so with respect if you are and you are right then all you say is available to Obama as well? Or any President for that matter.

No, none of that is available. It is a fantasy.

TH

You really should research before posting a response like that. It reveals a gross lack of understanding of the workings of the government, and construct of the US Constitution. Obama has been (unjustifiably) accused of abusing Executive Orders to bypass Congress. The power of the Executive Order does not need the approval of Congress, and is one way to supersede Congress, at least on a temporary basis. Trump has stated his intent to change the libel laws in America to make it easier for him to go after the press. He would have to go through Congress to change the law, so it's not probable, but neither is it impossible. The President DOES have considerable power to control the judiciary by means of his power to appoint judges. Why do you think the Republicans are so riled about the current Supreme Court vacancy? And the President DOES have the power to declare martial law. Check the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. The Supreme Court has interpreted that section as giving the President power to declare martial law (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/martial_law.aspx). Lastly, when Trump stated that he would, if elected, order the military to target terrorists' families, the former director of both the CIA and NSA, Michael Hayden, opined that the military would refuse, as such an order would be illegal. Trump responded, Im a leader, Ive always been a leader. Ive never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, theyre going to do it.

The fact is that, to date, American Presidents have been, for the most part, extremely cautious about their use of the incredible power that they wield. However, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is ill informed, temperamental, given to a lack of self control, and has a distinct penchant for surrounding himself with "yes" people. To hand someone like that the amount of power that comes with the Oval Office could easily become a means for him to seriously abuse such power.

You need to read your own link. You stated "the President can declare martial law at any time for any reason (which suspends the rule of law and would have the effect of tearing up the Constitution". Your own link states:

"However, Congress initially refused to ratify Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This refusal created friction between Congress and the president and raised the question of whether unilateral suspension of the writ under martial law was within the president's power. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue and ruled in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) (No. 487), that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus"

Every action the president makes in regard to martial law must be approved by Congress and is subject to Supreme Court review.

Trump cannot unilaterally change libel laws. Congress would have to do that and again, the Supreme Court can review for constitutionality.

The president does indeed have huge power, but the ability to become a dictator is not amoung them. The framers were well aware of the power of demogues and built in checks and balances to prevent someone just like Trump usurping the government.

The problems with this election are bad enough without indulging in untruthful fear mongering.

TH

Two points. First, I never stated that the President could, or would, resort to such. I simply pointed out that it is possible. An individual who was so inclined would simply do away with both Congress and the courts, including SCOTUS. He would do this with the military. Granted, it is extremely unlikely, but to say that it is impossible is not dealing with reality. And, no, intelligent discussion of what may amount to remote possibilities is not "fear mongering". It is simply an intellectual exercise. Second, the Supreme Court has never said that the President can not declare martial law apart from Congress. Were the situation such that Congress could not convene, then the power would rest solely in his hands. Nothing I have said is untruthful, or lacking in fact. That it most likely would never happen is not sufficient to eliminate it from consideration. That's precisely how this type of thing moves from improbable to likely.