Personality trumps Policy

Elliot Schroeder Elliot Schroeder 13 Comments


With Trump heavily favored to be the GOP nominee, how will he be in the general? Most pundits assume the rhetoric we’ve heard in the primary will continue. By then Trump would know that he already won the GOP primary, he needs to get Independents and Democrats. Trump will change tone and focus on other issues.

Supporters would argue that Trump will stick to the issues that made him win the primary. But Trump is a “winner” and a “deal maker.” In the primary, his deal was that he would raise the issues in exchange for votes. With the primary essentially over, that deal would be done. He is on to the next deal. Will this hurt his populist GOP base? No. These people are already emotionally invested in Trump. They fought on Facebook, in campaigns, in polls, and with relatives. They bought the hats and t-shirts, and went to the rallies. Their identity is with Trump until November regardless where he stands. And Trump knows this.

Elliot Schroeder is a candidate for the 77AD Republican Central Committee. Learn more about him at


Comments 13

  1. Eliot,

    I disagree with your premise that Trump is “heavily favored to be the GOP nominee.” If I had to place a bet today, I would put it on Cruz being nominated on the second ballot.

  2. Agree. Unlikely that he’ll come up with the required delegates. Without them, there’s no way he’ll be chosen.
    As to whether his change of personae will alienate the faithful, I have my doubts. They’ve already shown they’re happy to gulp down anything he feeds them. Why would this be different?

  3. That’s certainly possible. But that would not be without its cost. I’m not a Trump fan, but there are a lot of voters that think it should be the most delegates won in the primaries regardless if its the majority. I just sense that if its done by a delegate vote the Trump backers would see it as a GOPe plot and cry foul. It would hurt the GOP in the general. We’ll see.

  4. “… there are a lot of voters that think it should be the most delegates won in the primaries regardless if its the majority.”

    You are probably correct, but that is not the rule, nor has it ever been the rule. Both parties have had contested conventions before and survived, at least long-term. I am sure the imminent demise of the Republican Party being predicted by so many “experts” will not come to pass. However, In my outsider’s (I am obviously not a Republican) opinion, nominating Trump will have more long-term negative consequences than nominating Cruz or even an outsider. I would liken it to what happened in California when Governor Wilson supported Prop 187, only this time the offended group is not limited to Hispanics.

  5. You people are so disillusional on this site. Like Cruz can win in the general election. Likely to pick up the Deep South and thus lose in a landslide. Last thing we need is another guy from Texas being president. Paul Ryan does not fair any better…

  6. If people really knew that most liberals see the worlds interest as superior to Americas or Americans

  7. This Trump flap reminds me of my abortive though educational run for San Diego Mayor in 2005. The primary was won with a plurality of votes by Donna Fry, the only significant Democrat in the race. But the 4 of the next 5 candidates were Republican, and one was (gasp!) a Libertarian.

    It was clear to everybody who was going to win the general election — and it wasn’t Fry. Jerry Sanders took second in the primary, but in November he ran away with the runoff election, as supporters of those five candidates overwhelmingly voted for Sanders.

    Sadly, both candidates had to go through the expense and effort of a runoff campaign, with the outcome preordained.

    BTW, a somewhat unrelated thought to the Trump drama. If we had had “preference voting” in that mayoral special election primary, the second choice checked off on the ballots of the “losers’ ” supporters would have gone to Sanders, and the race would have been over that evening.

    With the race over in July, doubtless no one would have missed the avalanche of fall commercials for the two runoff candidates. Great amounts of money could have been saved by both candidate supporters and the government (one elections instead of two).

    Preference voting is not a wild idea. San Francisco uses it now. So do several other U.S. cities, and MANY countries around the world (at least in some elections).

    Wouldn’t it be better to hold ONE election rather than two? Campaign consultants doubtless would vehemently oppose such a reform, but it’s worth considering.

  8. Richard,

    If you concur that the “one election” should be held in November, then this is one of those very rare times that we are in complete agreement.

  9. Richard thank you for bringing that up. In some countries people vote on ballots with who their second and third choices are.


    It appears that San Francisco voters only vote for their top three choices:

    “San Francisco requires a threshold of 50 percent plus one of the votes when every ballot is tallied. If that threshold is not met, the city will then run the ranked-choice system, eliminating the lowest-ranking candidates and reshuffling their second- and third-place votes until someone has a majority “of the continuing ballots”.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.