Why I doubt Trump will moderate all that much in the general.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

He knows what got him to that point, which is the insane xenophobic reactionary base of supporters he's gathered. If he goes soft, there's a chance they'll reject him for deviating from the message they've bought into.

You could argue he could try to offset that by going after people from the middle and even the left (disgruntled Sanders supporters), but he's already revealed himself who he is during the primary season, and that's way too ugly for any sane person to swallow. People aren't going to be fooled into thinking now he's a middle of the road, level-headed guy.

So my prediction is that the Donald Trump we see now is going to be the Donald Trump we see through November at the least. Don't hold me too hard to it, but that's just my two cents.

[ViseGrip]

1. I think war, our nation building, fracking, our trade deals are all ugly too.

[gwheezie]

4. The Donald is not against any of these things

He has no idea what he's talking about and is unconcerned that he just recently said the opposite of what he now stands for.

[libdem4life]

2. Please dispense with the (disgruntled Sanders supporters).

The superiority drips out between those parentheses. And about 10 of said Sanders supporters are going to vote for Trump. Maybe 3 or 4 here. Please just send your message without seeming disingenuous. OK?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. I'm saying he'd target disgrunted Sanders supporters. I'm not saying they'd take the bait.

They might be disgruntled, but they're not stupid.

[libdem4life]

6. I think you missed the point. And then doubled down.

When you call people disgruntled and then say "but they're not stupid"

It's hubris. Try using those terms with, say, POC. Here's how it sounds. Well, the blacks/women/brown/Native Americans are certainly disgruntled with their plight, but they are not stupid.

Nor do we take bait. We really do think, reason, compare, distinguish, discuss, etc.. That's what defines my Liberal positions.

News flash. We're not disgruntled either. We're cautiously pissed off at all the voting "irregularities" but most of all, disappointed in the 20 year record of his centrist/corporate opponent. We are not dismissive of her record or excited about more of the same for 4 years.

But then this is not a post for comparison of positions. It's just that we don't share many of hers.

Perhaps the term would better be "supporters of the other candidate". Just a suggestion.

Peace.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Since when did saying someone is disgrunted mean they're stupid?

It's possible that if Senator Sanders is not nominated as the Democratic nominee--and the fact of the matter is that at this point it's likely he won't be--there will be supporters of his who will vehemently declare up and down that in no way will they vote for Hillary Clinton. I certainly hope that won't be the case as I believe it to be highly counter-productive, but it's seems to be the mindset of at least a few out there. Don't believe me? Take one look at GD: P.

But all the same, I don't see those same people ever actually voting for Donald Trump, as no one in their right mind anywhere in the center to left portion of the political spectrum would possibly fall for doing that. They might withhold their vote for the Democratic nominee--which would inure to Trump's benefit--but they wouldn't actually mark their vote for Trump.

So, no, being disgruntled doesn't mean you're a gullible dupe who will turn to any port in the storm. I'm pretty sure you're the one who missed the point on that.

[libdem4life]

10. I'd just suggest it would be best to leave comments about Sanders supporters

our of your posts. And finally, "not a gullible dupe who will turn to any port in the storm". Hyperbole, at best.

[karadax]

3. He doesn't need to be the middle of the road. He just needs to be to the left of the Dem nominee on

a couple of important issues to siphon some votes. He already is to the left of Hillary on the issues of trade / jobs , war and things such as corporate big money corrupting the system.

All he has to do is maintain course.

[pampango]

7. Agreed. He must think he has struck gold with his "American First" isolationist rhetoric.

It worked in the 1920's for Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover before FDR came into office. High tariffs, restrictive immigration laws, no League of Nations, no other international organizations or agreeements - although Calvin and Herbert never thought about building a yuuuuuge wall on the Mexican border.

It even worked in the 1930's caused FDR problems as he tried to help the UK fight against Nazi Germany. "America First" thought Britain was going to lose to Germany in short order like France so why make Hitler mad. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed the first "America First". Donald looks like he wants to resurrect it. He is a good salesman. You never know.

[TeamPooka]

8. Narcissists think of themselves as perfect and that everybody loves them.

So why would he change even if he could?