News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: They Voted Democratic. Now They Support Trump. - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

They Voted Democratic. Now They Support Trump. Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,691
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 27 November 2019 - 07:53 AM

They Voted Democratic. Now They Support Trump.

Nate Cohn and Claire Cain Miller
NY Times!


Midterm victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin gave Democrats hope of retaking the Rust Belt battleground states that handed the presidency to Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Yet success in the midterms might not mean as much for Democratic presidential candidates as the party might think. Nearly two-thirds of voters in six battleground states who voted for President Trump in 2016 — but for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 — say they intend to back the president against each of his top rivals, according to recent polling by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College.

The results suggest that the party’s winning formula in last year’s midterms may not be so easy to replicate in a presidential election. The Democrats’ relatively moderate House candidates succeeded in large part by flipping a crucial segment of voters who backed the president in 2016. If these voters remain open-minded again in 2020, Democrats will have a ready-made blueprint for winning back the crucial Rust Belt battlegrounds.

This group is only a sliver of the electorate — 2 percent of registered voters — and is not representative of all voters. They are overwhelmingly white, 60 percent are male, and two-thirds have no college degree. But the president’s strength among them helps explain why he is highly competitive in states that Democrats carried just one year ago.

Many of the voters who said they voted Democratic but now intended to vote for Mr. Trump offered explanations that reflect longstanding theories about why the party out of power tends to excel in midterms.

(Full Story)

#2 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,959
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 08:47 AM

She voted to "balance" the administrations power. How did that work out for her? Is she happy the idiots in the house are now running a impeach-a-palooza? These are the people that make you really nuts, they believe that the DNC is about balance. They haven't seen this party in their lives and they are too daft to realize the real dangers of a person like AOC.


Another reason was local: The Democrat promised to bring more jobs to her area, Nanty Glo, Pa. (The name comes from a Welsh phrase that means “streams of coal,” but its coal jobs have disappeared.)

Here's another idiotic belief. If you believe the global warming crowd wants you digging in the dirt for anything other than potatoes to keep you alive in the winter, then you are nuts. They want that coal in the ground and they want you in your house compliant and hoping you have electricity to roast a damn marshmallow. Because you certainly won't have enough heat to keep your house warm.

Another stupid concept:


Voters often think differently about state and national issues. Some said they had voted for their local Democrat in the midterms because the person had served well for a long time, or because the candidate’s policies would directly help their community.

If the individual caucuses with the DNC that means if their policy is to "bring coal back" well Nancy Pelosi and Schumer do not want coal back. So voting for them means coal is going to stay in the ground. When you vote locally for that Democrat you better understand that the DNC national platform is what you are voting for. That person's "I am going to speak truth to power" position will not mean a damn thing in a party that votes as a body of 1. Your issue in West Virginia will mean nothing to a marxist from San Francisco, and if you don't understand that then you are a fool.


“In the last couple years, the Democrats had kind of been losing the work, and I thought Trump might get us that work,” he said. “And to be honest, I’ve been in construction 21 years and the last two years were the best years I’ve ever had.”

He voted for the Democrat in the midterms because he liked his ideas on less polarizing local issues, like veterans affairs and opioids, while he said the Republicans were too focused on Washington politics. He has also been intrigued by Bernie Sanders. But he’ll probably back Mr. Trump again, he said.

Here is another idiot with no critical thinking skills. Last 2 years have been the best? No crap, buildings and businesses are going up again because the economy is on fire. Less polarizing issues? Like impeachment? Trump is pro VA and Opiods and the party he leads would have run with that ball had they been in power.

If you are intrigued with Bernie Sanders, then you are a infant. People were "intrigued" with Hugo Chavez, who is far to the right when compared to Komrade Bernie.


“If you’re going to Washington, you need to do something,” he said. “If the only thing you’re going to do the whole time you’re there is try to get rid of the president, that’s a problem. I mean, Trump is not a great person, but you’ve got to get some work done.”

He's not a great person? I beg to differ. He works for the American people FOR FREE. He has donated EVERY Dollar he's earned to charity. You will say "Well hell, he's rich so he should" 1st of all no that's not true, no person should work for free, that's called slavery or indentured servitude. But if they do it as their choice then so be it. On the other hand Schumer is rich but not dirty rich, about 800,000 in net worth. So he should definitely take his paycheck, AOC same issues. Bernie is Rich, but not fat rich so Komrade shouldn't work for free, but if given his policies he should be working for 10% of his paycheck and donating the rest to the gubmint like he wants us to do. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand that Catholic marxist is worth 120-135 Million dollars. So why is this person taking a paycheck?


#3 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,187
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 08:00 PM

Trump was open to (reasonable) democrat ideas as well as Republican from the start. The democrats slammed that door shut and locked it. The Republicans remained squishy and timid until they were shown they could actually fight back against the smear merchants and win. The establishment, including dems and Repubs were/are terrified of Trump being successful since it reveals what can be done and where their priorities really lie.

Trump is not the problem.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users