4 ms·

Trump's (presumptive) nomination was a big surprise to me. However, in retrospect, it looks less surprising. Trump was always going to attract a sizable minorit

Trump's (presumptive) nomination was a big surprise to me. However, in retrospect, it looks less surprising. Trump was always going to attract a sizable minority, and there were really no other compelling candidates in the race. While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. At the end, well, I am not certain that I wouldn't pick Trump over Cruz, for example.

PantaloonFlames 10y ago
> I am not certain that I wouldn't pick Trump over Cruz, for example. The negatives sprinkled throughout that sentence don't make it clearer. isn't it just: "I would pick Trump over Cruz"?
- thebooktocome 10y ago
  No; the evidential "I am not certain" is not logically exclusive with its negation, "I am certain". So the principle of double negation does not apply. Brought to you by a partially wasted youth as a philosophy major.
sverige 10y ago
> While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. Why are you sure of that? He's gotten a record number of votes for a Republican primary. It's very clear that, in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump, along with a sizable percentage of independents who voted in some of the primaries. It's this kind of wishful thinking by non-Republicans that leads to all the laughable errors of the pundit and pollster class.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  > in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump He does not have a majority of the primary vote.
Animats 10y ago
There were really no other compelling candidates in the race. Last year, the 2016 GOP presidential candidates were referred to as a "Republican dream team" by Karl Rove. That was true only by comparison with the 2012 field, which was more like the Republican clown car. Really, the disappointment here is that the candidates just weren't very good. The choices were a few second-rate governors (Bush, Kasich) and a bunch of far-right nuts. None of them would measure up to Eisenhower, or Reagan, or Bush I, or even Nixon. This setup where you become President by raising your own money and running your own campaign isn't working.
rdtsc 10y ago
An old school Republican (wealthy older white gentlement), told me at the begging of the campaign that Republican party is doomed. He considered Trump a bad joke at the time. And was talking about Cruz and others. He saw the target demographics of the Republican basically dying out, nothing to appeal to younger generation and predicted the party won't last too much longer. It made sense to me. It seems funny enough the clown that everyone was laughing at might now be a new hope for the party. I think what is going to be interesting is that there a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and would vote for Hillary instead. And also there are a good number of Democrats who will vote for Trump if they can't have Sanders (as both Sanders and Trump are seen as being anti-existing-political establishment).

PantaloonFlames 10y ago

> I am not certain that I wouldn't pick Trump over Cruz, for example. The negatives sprinkled throughout that sentence don't make it clearer. isn't it just: "I would pick Trump over Cruz"?

thebooktocome 10y ago
No; the evidential "I am not certain" is not logically exclusive with its negation, "I am certain". So the principle of double negation does not apply. Brought to you by a partially wasted youth as a philosophy major.

sverige 10y ago

> While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. Why are you sure of that? He's gotten a record number of votes for a Republican primary. It's very clear that, in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump, along with a sizable percentage of independents who voted in some of the primaries. It's this kind of wishful thinking by non-Republicans that leads to all the laughable errors of the pundit and pollster class.

robotresearcher 10y ago
> in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump He does not have a majority of the primary vote.

Animats 10y ago

There were really no other compelling candidates in the race. Last year, the 2016 GOP presidential candidates were referred to as a "Republican dream team" by Karl Rove. That was true only by comparison with the 2012 field, which was more like the Republican clown car. Really, the disappointment here is that the candidates just weren't very good. The choices were a few second-rate governors (Bush, Kasich) and a bunch of far-right nuts. None of them would measure up to Eisenhower, or Reagan, or Bush I, or even Nixon. This setup where you become President by raising your own money and running your own campaign isn't working.

rdtsc 10y ago

An old school Republican (wealthy older white gentlement), told me at the begging of the campaign that Republican party is doomed. He considered Trump a bad joke at the time. And was talking about Cruz and others. He saw the target demographics of the Republican basically dying out, nothing to appeal to younger generation and predicted the party won't last too much longer. It made sense to me. It seems funny enough the clown that everyone was laughing at might now be a new hope for the party. I think what is going to be interesting is that there a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and would vote for Hillary instead. And also there are a good number of Democrats who will vote for Trump if they can't have Sanders (as both Sanders and Trump are seen as being anti-existing-political establishment).