It's funny that you think things run on American money, we think it runs on London and Chinese money.

Presidents are not picked by "winning" an election, they are picked by "avoiding loosing".

You might be right, but my perception is slightly different. 

If you look at how Reagan changed the party from "Pre - Reagan" to a "Post Reagan" era, it was by uniting three versions of conservatism:
- Fiscal conservatives - These were "original republicans", many are socially fairly liberal.
- Religious conservatives - These were originally the Southern Democrats, and more or less where Cruz pulls support
- Big Government skepticism conservatives. - These were mostly original Republicans, also many are more open minded that you might think.  They are nearly libertarian in thinking  - Rand Paul

These three groups all sort of put up with each other, but it isn't that they fit together perfectly.

Cruz can only pull from the religious conservatives, and a few fiscal conservatives, but he has virtually no backing from the rest of the historical republican voters.  Romney lost for the same reason, the voters stayed hone or voted third party just out of protest.

I am not sure how Hillary fits into your thinking about being even slightly part of one of those 3 historical parts of the Republican party, but maybe I am missing something.

As far as Trump causing local elections to move toward the DNC - I really doubt it.  The DNC lost those elections - when they could have won, because Bloomberg pushed Obama to go after gun ownership.  They won't admit it, but it was really that simple.  The ongoing siege of (many)  personal rights by Clinton and Bloomberg will keep many actually decent dem candidates out of office.

Republicans that loose elections will be looking to blame someone, but it will be because of what they have done, or not done, not because of Trump.

I am not really sure that it will weaken or destroy the RNC party, but it might move it more toward middle of the road politics than it's somewhat over the top religious bent right now.  

 

Virtually all of the significant aspects of the polls you cite are already existing law.   The articles you are pointing to are just fear factor polls to work toward gun ownership bans by tricking people into thinking that we live in the wild west.  It is well documented that Bloomberg and a few billionaires are funding news articles like this to be written.

Guess what their other big boogey man is?  Sugar.  They want to tax a 25 cent can of pepsi with a 36 cent tax, in addition to the existing sales tax, can recycle fee, etc.  My guess is that pepsi and coke didn't pay him off (buy his over priced advertising) so he is trying to blackmail them)

You can't legally just buy or sell a gun on a whim, the area is heavily managed and monitored, and the penalties are quite severe with life long consequences, even though the products are "legal" and "fundamentally protected by the US Constitution".  They are actually MORE protected than the right to religious freedom and the right to vote.

On the other hand, if you buy or sell heroine on the street, a substance which is a federal offense to posses under most any situation, and kills nearly all of the people associated with it, you can "turn your life around" and get off fairly easily.

If you ask most any legal gun owner, they also support the core ideas of making sure that gun ownership and use is done safely.  The NRA and similar organizations do more to support training and safe gun ownership than anyone.

The DNC actually is actually making gun ownership "less safe", because it makes people think that this right will be taken away (like in most countries), so it drives more gun purchases than would normally happen.

Fist fighting and politics are long time associations.  Sanders supporters are strongly anti-Clinton as well.

I could see either Sanders or Trump as being Candidates I could vote for, as they both actually carry similar concepts.  They are both really "independents", or perhaps just agnostic about the RNC or DNC being correct on many topics.

I'd like to see the facts behind that statement.
 

You think "widespread disaffection is limited to the "American hinterland", given that "There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot"? You think that is limited to the middle class and rural areas? Please explain. How is there disaffection in one place yet misery and fear - lots? Aren't they both country-wide?

Trump has WAY more than Hillary's propensity to play the femme card, anyone has - he just hasn't used any of it yet. Clinton IS the war on women, but there is so much more negative to her, defeating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jason Fuller:
 

*My comment
 

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

Harry, where is your source on the above? Are you the party insider or the billionaire funder?

 

Well-connected didn't seem to serve her well as SOS. How will it translate to a higher position? Tell me: What did she accomplish as SOS that makes her more qualified than anyone else to be POTUS? What world leader will listen to her based on her accomplishments?

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?