MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Poll says GOP less likely to vote for Tr...

Poll says GOP less likely to vote for Trump.

posted 9 months ago by Ranb (11277)
51 replies | jump to latest

Trump verdict makes significant number of Republicans less likely to support him
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-verdict-makes-significant-number-republicans-less-likely-support-him-poll

A new poll conducted immediately following former President Trump's criminal conviction in New York found a significant number of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for him in November.

One in 10 registered GOP voters said Trump's felony conviction for falsifying business records would make them less likely to support him for president, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Friday. The two-day poll was conducted hours after a jury in Manhattan on Thursday found Trump guilty on all counts brought against him by District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The poll also found that a majority of Republican voters, 56%, said the outcome of the case would have no effect on their vote and 35% said they were even more likely to support Trump, who maintains his innocence.

A loss of 10% of votes is fatal for any candidate. Very few of his supporters will be able to vote 2 or more times.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

What percentage of moderates are more likely to vote for him, or at least against the party of kangeroo courts and political prisoners?

[–] Ranb (11277) 9 months ago

Well, seeing as how the kangaroo court and political prisoners are figments of your imagination, I'm going to say

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

No, we all saw it. For some reason you support the injustice of it all.

In sucha large nation, there will be some republicans dumb enough to take the fucking NYC court/jury, as credible and be less likely to vote for Trump.

THe question is, can even teh msm sell this... massive pile of shit, to the moderates and/or more moderate dems.

That is the question. If for every republican Trump loses, he picks up two moderates and a dem, then this is a huge fail for the dems.

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

"For some reason..."

I see the reason. He's an idiot who wants to appear smarter than he actually is, and consistently tries to condescend here, as if he has a better understanding of law that has been both baffling and disgusting legal experts with decades of experience for the past six weeks.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Sounds about right.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

If 34 felony convictions make you more likely to vote for Trump, you aren't a moderate

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

34 felony convictions for 34 misdemeanor crimes, well after the statue of limitations ran out?

Only a radical lefty would support that.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Only a Trump boot-licker would say that, yes he committed 34 felonies, beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's cool with me because it was a while ago.

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

Even after that verdict is overturned, the precedents will still be set.

No statute of limitations for any former Presidents.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

The statue of limitations, teh Right to a Speedy trial, that is a basic human right, according to our culture, since the founding of this nation.

That you are dismissing it, even ridiculing it, is.... shocking.

Do you realize that you are AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

The statute of limitations was not expired.
Kind of hard to blame prosecutors for not having a speedy trial when the defendant and his minions did everything they could to delay the trial (Bob Barr as AG stopped investigation at Justice, after telling NY DA not to prosecute because they were. Failure to comply with subpoena's hindering the investigation. Endless challenges to dismiss, recuse, etc, etc, etc)

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 9 months ago

The misdemeanors were a part of a larger, felony.

[–] tvfan (14553) 9 months ago

There were no Felonies. They were elevated.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

No, they weren't. That was an long after the fact rationalization to ignore the statue of limitations.

This is a violation of Trump's civil rights and a violation of the rights of his supporters.

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 9 months ago

Nope. Has been discussed a million times why statue of limitations doesn't work in this case.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Correct. If they respected Trump's civil rights, then they wouldn't be able to arrest and convict him.

Now is the time to move the discussion forward to what kind of country we are going to have, now that we don't have civil rights. At least for republicans.

Query: How would you respond if it was TRUMP, who was ignoring the civil rights of dems?

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 9 months ago

Do some basic research. It's obvious why they didn't allow it.

Trump does ignore the voting rights of Democrats. He's was literally indicted for trying to do so.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Your stonewalling is strong.

As a lefty are you comfortable with this new anti-civil rights position, what with the left's long history of at least pretending to be such strong "civil rights" advocates.

Kind of a big gap between rhetorica and reality now. Does that bother you at all?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Statute of limitations hadn't expired.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Sure it did. That WHY they folded it into bigger charges.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Statute of limitations on something they didn't charge him with expired. It did not expire on what they did charge him with.

Do you understand that

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

You don't know the difference between "statue" and "statute", you're questioning his ability to understand something, and "information" is part of your moniker when you're an illiterate fuck? 🙄 I say that because it's obviously not a typo or you wouldn't keep using it.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Autofill typo, dickwad.

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

You're the dickwad for being too mentally lazy to ever try to correct it.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Grow up, child

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

I'm grown up enough to use basic grammar, which I learned in grade school.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

The "what they did charge him with" was only because the statute of limitations had run out.

This is a clear injustice and a violation of Trump's constitutional rights.

Infomation-POlice. Time to ask yourself a serious question.

Do you support human rights, or do you just pretend to, when it serves your partisan purposes?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Statute of limitations did not run out for felony charge. Whether or not it did for misdemeanor charge is moot, because he wasn't charged for a misdemeanor offense.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

STOP TALKING, and THINK!!!

You are being stampeded into supporting a massive violation of civil rights. Trump's right to a speedy trial, and a fair trial, and his supporters right to a fair election.

Do you really want to come down on that side of history? Was EVERY TIME YOU OPENED YOUR PIE HOLE ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS IN YOUR LIFE, JUST SHIT TALK?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Trump's civil rights were not violated.

On what basis do you claim it was not a speedy trial? On what basis was it not fair?

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

The statue of limitations is the specifics of how the speedy trial right is applied. They expired. That is the end of it, according to the American tradition.

Many ways it was not fair, from the venue not being moved, to the judges instructions to the jury, to the jury finding GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS in one fucking DAY? Come info, stop reacting and think for a second.

This is clearly a violation of Trump's rights.

iF you don't support the human rights of people you don't like, then you don't support them for anyone.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

The statutes of limitations did not expire. Please be better informed and don't keep telling the same misinformation.

As you have said, that is the end of it.

There was no reason for the venue to be moved. There was an impartial jury seated with input from Trump's council. Frankly, I'm amazed they didn't get one die hard MAGA on the jury. It is equally probably they did not get any hard core democratic operatives on it, as they all got through voir dire.

Since when is a jury finding a defendant guilty evidence of a violation of human rights! It is evidence that he was really guilty and that the prosecution presented a sound case and the judge gave a clear explanation of the law (which Trump's attorneys agreed to).

Stop grasping at straws.

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

A BILLIONIARE'S legal team couldn't raise reasonable doubt on ONE out of 34 charges?

That's bullshit.

YOu know that. Why are you supporting this violation of civil rights?

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

That's guilt!

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

mmm...Interesting....

I make a point about Trump facing a biased jury and your response is to ignore my point about the unfair trial and just pounce on "guilt"...

That was YOu not caring about respecting Trump's civil rights.

You ignored my point about the jury and only cared that Trump is guilty.

That is contrary to everything this country has been about from day one.

It is also contrary to the entire concept of human rights, that supposed is the basis of every civil rights group, or movement or law or policy...

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

You made no argument that the jury was biased. You only pointed to the fact that they reached a verdict fairly quickly. That was because there was excellent evidence presented clearly. The defense barely provided a defense other than putting up a witness that made the only weak link in the prosecution, Cohen, look like a model citizen!

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Typical lib. You deny I made a point then attack the point. Part of the point anyways.

My new point still stands. Your initial reaction was to ignore my point and just celebrte the guilt.

Your behavior shows how much you care about civil rights.

ie not at all. NOt when it is someone you don't like.

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

Looking back I do not see any point you made, other to claim that the jury was biased. You seem to think that because the jury did not find him innocent, it must be biased. That is nonsensical. Are we to believe that any guilty verdict in a court of law is because of a biased jury?

[–] Corbell (11001) 9 months ago

Now you are playing dumb on top of ignoring my point about your initial reaction.

I understand. It is hard to face the truth, when the truth is as ugly as it has gotten.

Eventually when the movement advances to the point of being more open about being against civil rights for "counter revolutionaries" or whatever rationalization you use, I hope you remember this discussion and that....

I TOLD YOU SO.

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

Finally, "statute", 🤣 because you got called out on it. But now there's a new problem..."Whether or not or did fur misdemeanor chare"...very incoherent! You really are fuckin' illiterate. 😄

[–] robocat893 (16251) 9 months ago

He's not illiterate but you are very stupid. Anyone who supports Trump after his 34 felony convictions is very stupid.

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

He is illiterate. He keeps displaying it, over and over.

So, according to your self-righteous, twisted thinking, the 16000 people at the UFC fight over the week end that gave Trump a standing ovation are very stupid. All of the people coming out of the woodwork that contributed a record 200+ million to his campaign in the 48 hrs following the verdict are very stupid. The 3.5 million followers he immediately gained on TikTok in the same time frame are very stupid. Wow! You must really be so much smarter than so many people. Why don't you run for POTUS then, you extremely condescending pos? You're considerably more obnoxious than Trump.

[–] robocat893 (16251) 9 months ago

Too many words. I didn't even read your post because I know it's full of stupid. 🤣🖕🏻

[–] db20db (17740) 9 months ago

Sure you didn't, you lying pos. If there's any truth to that, it's because you're afraid of my words, chickenshit.

[–] Mattc164 (619) 9 months ago

If any Republican changes their vote for Trump based off this verdict then they were never a Republican to begin with. Who are they going to vote for? I’m going to assume, hope, they aren’t going to vote for Biden but even if they vote for the third candidate, presumably Kennedy, that’s as good as a vote for Biden since Kennedy won’t win and it’ll just be one less Trump vote.

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 9 months ago

Imagine how many people will drop out that aren't a part of the cult of Trump to begin with.

[–] Ranb (11277) 9 months ago

Well, if the are gun owners, military, women, POW's etc. They might vote for someone who does not claim to hate them so much.

[–] Narwhale37 (1290) 9 months ago

What would make you not support him?

[–] Ranb (11277) 9 months ago

Trump's mere existence has always been enough for me to never support him in any manner.

Ever since the early 1990's when Trump tried to force a widow out of her home so he could put a parking lot in its place, I have felt that Trump is a vile person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking_house#History

Trump's behavior since then has only made him less worthy as a candidate for any office in my opinion. I have a low opinion of most politicians, including Biden.

[–] DarthAckbar (2316) 9 months ago

LOL!

[–] jriley555 (8543) 9 months ago

What we generally hear from are partisans. Independents, moderate voters are where the elections are won/lost.

We don't yet know the real impact of these convictions. To expect little/no effect may be conventional wisdom, but this is a rather unprecedented state of affairs, so its reasonable to wait to see how things settle out.

Not every Republican has given up on the rule of law, or respect for our institutions/elections/democratic process. That cynicism and rejectionism is being over-sold. Yes, it is a solid majority, but this is new news.