He wouldn’t have gotten that far. A black dude that treated people like that would have been blackballed in the real estate market and ended up bankrupt long before getting his name on a skyscraper.

What @Seek said. Also, a lot of Trump’s early success came from his popularity among white supremacists (a core element of his base, though obviously not the entirety of it). So even if he had participated in the primaries, he probably wouldn’t have had such an early lead.

He still would have had his Fox News boost. They spent eight years desperately putting every black person who disliked Obama in front of a camera. But that probably wouldn’t have translated into votes—or at least, not enough votes to keep him on top of the pack.

Sorry, I have trouble enough imagining Trump as he is without imagining a black version.

No way. I do think wealth does erase skin color to some extent for some people. Still, his crass and jumbled talk would have lost him a lot more votes if he were black. He would have gained more black votes than he received, but not enough to counter the White he would have lost. He never would have made it past the primaries.

We already have a case study to compare from the previous election: Herman Cain.

He was leading the primary race until sexual assault and harrassment accusations started surfacing.

Hard to say whether the circumstances have changed so much since then that people have simply stopped caring about things like that. I suspect skin colour is a factor though—the “black sexual predator” plays up to racist tropes that wouldn’t strictly apply to a rich white guy like Trump.

No, not even close. Too many hard-core racist Republicans! ESPECIALLY those over-religious Tea Baggers!!!

LOL, no. Good point though. SNL should do a sketch of that. Get Eddie Murphy to do it!

Or just link to this one by Garrett Morris ! I think that’s where “black Trump” would be.

No, he wouldn’t have. The only thing is, if he was black, the idiots who voted for him would actually recognize the hideous person he is, and say, “Well, else would you expect from a n****r.”

@MrGrimm888 NO!

@SavoirFaire What @Seek said. Also, a lot of Trump’s early success came from his popularity among white supremacists (a core element of his base, though obviously not the entirety of it).
That comment was so disingenuous to white people I do not know what to say. If Black people made comments like that we would be called reverse bigots, radical, or separatist. For there to be that many white supremacist to overcome all of the Black, Latino, non-supremacist white votes etc. more than half the white population would have to be supremacist. I guess if that can be floated as a truth we Black folk should run with that and say the reason so many of us can’t get to the Ivory Tower is not because of lack of education or drive but because the White Tower and it’s ”C-note” ceiling” is controlled by white supremacist hell bent on keeping their privilege, so the government needs to step in and make them appoint managers and such their qualifications be damned.

As to the OQ, even if he were Black and managed to overcome what he allegedly done with women or other Boorish acts, he would have been seen as some uneducated, rude, wannabe mac daddy pimp. He would have played up to a modern version of Blacks in ”Birth of a Nation”. If he did prevail I guess he would have had to be a Democrat, then people would be saying he rode into the White House on the back of uneducated welfare moms and ”hoodrats”; and people would be saying that was wrong to suggest.

LOL! I’m white! I didn’t think it was racist.White supremacists are a small, but noisy and stupid, minority. Sorry if that was insulting to you noisy and stupid people.

@Hypocrisy_Central “That comment was so disingenuous to white people I do not know what to say.”

The word “disingenuous” means “lacking candor or sincerity.” It’s hard to see how the comment could be anything but candid, so why exactly do you think it is insincere? Furthermore, one cannot be disingenuous to something (the word does not call for an object, grammatically speaking), so there’s no way that the comment could be “disingenuous to white people.”

“If Black people made comments like that we would be called reverse bigots, radical, or separatist.”

And whoever called them that would be wrong. Regardless of what Trump may think about white supremacists, they have been very open about their support of him. Moreover, they rallied behind him early on in the primary season, while other Republicans were still dividing their support up among the various candidates. They gave him his early lead. This is simply a historical fact, and the race of the person stating a fact doesn’t stop being it from being a fact.

“For there to be that many white supremacist to overcome all of the Black, Latino, non-supremacist white votes etc. more than half the white population would have to be supremacist.”

Ah, it seems that you did not actually read what I wrote. Even though you quoted it, let’s look at it one more time:

“Also, a lot of Trump’s early success came from his popularity among white supremacists (a core element of his base, though obviously not the entirety of it).”

Not only did I limit my comment to Trump’s early success (i.e., at the very beginning of the primary season), I was also quite explicit that white supremacists were not the whole of Trump’s base. I was not talking about the general election, nor did I say that all or even most of Trump’s voters were white supremacists. Indeed, I very clearly said the opposite. So once we remove your unwarranted misreading of what I said, your response to it does not make a lick of sense.

I find it interesting that @Hypocrisy_Central is so offended by the question…

I think it should offend people who voted for him,who know that they wouldn’t have given him a chance as a black man. If they don’t admit that, they need to do some more honest introspective thinking.

Trump’s actions,rhetoric, behavior,intelligence (or lack of,) and experience in politics make him a terrible candidate at best. How he overcame all that I still don’t know. But, IMO, he wouldn’t have had a chance as a black man….

Since nobody gave him the slightest chance to win the primary, then they gave him no chance to win the election, it would seem that he couldn’t have had less of a chance regardless of your speculation. If he was Jewish or black or short or a women or whatever, he would not have been given less of a chance that you all gave him in this race. Instead of continuous degradation of Trump, you should be trying to figure out what was wrong with your message.

@Jaxk . Degradation of Trump is not the point of the question. It’s about perception. Personally, I find it relevant for this type of forum.

Postulating that trump was driven to win the primaries by ‘White Supremacists’, is not trying to denigrate him? There are at best a few hundred ‘White Supremacist’ in the country and to try and insinuate that they pushed him over the top is so ludicrous as to be laughable. It was the Democrats that pushed Trump to win the primary because they thought he would be the easiest candidate to beat. Now you want the people that were wrong at every turn of this election to speculate on what the outcome would be if things were different. What you get is more degradation of Trump and more erroneous guesses. I would expect no less.

@Jaxk . That was not my postulation. Please re-read this thread. I NEVER insinuated he rose because of white supremacists.

I asked this question to Fluther.

Again. The question is about how people are perceived. Or how Trump is perceived by Americans.

IMO.The votes accumulated by Trump from many of his supporters would not have been cast if he was anything but a white man.

And my follow up, is that’s cause for pause,and concern.

If someone who voted for Trump honestly wouldn’t have done so if he were black, then there should be a moment of clarity for them. That moment allows them the chance to change the way they perceive things. And change the way that they think and act.

A chance to make the world a better place.

If Trump’s race “trumped” his ideas, then people need to make an honest attempt to understand why,and if it is warranted. Only then can they/and society move forward.

@MrGrimm888 – Your intentions may have been honorable but the result is the same. You’re on an extremely liberal site with very few Trump voters. The result is that all you will see are liberals speculating about conservatives. Always an erroneous and hateful response. Would Obama have been elected if he had been white, female, or gay. Personally I think much of this election was simply that a large segment of the country is sick and tired of everything being boiled down to race, gender or sexual preference. Your question is obviously pushing the race card and you’re getting the response I would expect from those that want to push the race card. You can ask what ever you want but I see nothing insightful about pushing the same ole issue that lost Democrats the election.

I don’t know that he had any intentions other than curiosity. You’re reading too much into it @Jaxk.

I don’t think so. He paints a picture of someone that should be completely unelectable but won. Then speculates would a black man be elected to insinuate that race is the only reason he won. Quite a setup and pretty clearly points to the answer he wants. If you think that race is the reason trump won, you’re missing the whole point and I would encourage you to continue down this path as you have in the past. It will insure 8 years of Trump instead of 4.

I have no idea why trump won, but it wasn’t because of race. Race doesn’t come into play when white people are running. Sexism may, as in this case, but not race.
No he would not have won as a black man, for sure.

So why do you think the EC voted him in, in the face of the majority, @Jaxk? What point am I missing?

@Dutchess_III – Here’s the point. The question didn’t read that trump promised change, economic growth, jobs, Security, and controlling the borders, if he was black could he have been elected. That’s what Trump promised and a black man could definitely get elected with those promises. Obama did. Instead @MrGrimm888 wanted to focus on negatives and race. It wasn’t Trumps negatives that got him elected but rather his positives. Obama promised much of the same things but was too much of an ideologue to deliver. Clinton promised more of the same so you assume it was sexism that defeated her. Most people don’t give a shit what color or sex the person is but rather whether they can deliver what is promised. The Democrats have been focussing on race and sex for so long that it’s lost it’s impact. Now in addition to calling the candidates racist or sexist you’re trying to call the voters racist and sexist. It’s too much and that line has run it’s course. Maybe next time you could consider running on issues.

@Jaxk is simply demonstrating the typical alt-right defense.

Failure to see within themselves any person other than a patriot, due to anger at what acceptance of the facts would mean.

That’s that they are in need of ideological adjustment/awareness .

I never called anyone racist in this thread. But he subconsciously defends it ,because he knows it’s a variable. Just doesn’t want to be judged by it…

I don’t think that it was WHAT Trump promised that got him elected, it was THAT he promised. (WHAT he was promising was utterly ridiculous!) Certain people are not too smart and believe all kinds of stuff. Many believe that there is a “God.” Trump could have promised that everyone would get a trip to the moon, a daily chicken for their pot, and $1,000,000 each. He promised, and people bought it.
(“There’ a sucker born every minute.” -WC Fields) I don’t really know if WC Fields said that but it doesn’t matter because it is true. Therefore, being black or white doesn’t matter.

@MrGrimm888 I find it interesting that @Hypocrisy_Central is so offended by the question…
I am not offended by the question, I believe it is the type of question Fluther should encourage more. What I take offence to is my white friends and brethren who voted and supported Trump to be made out like idiots, closet bigots or worse. Also to suggest there was so many White Supremacist as to nullify or overtake regular Americans, even if it were the primaries….boggles the mind to say the least.

I think it should offend people who voted for him,who know that they wouldn’t have given him a chance as a black man. If they don’t admit that, they need to do some more honest introspective thinking.
There are some who would not admit to giving him a chance of he was atheist, or gay. Some make themselves hypocrites because as much as they are trying to say how open and non-respecter of persons they are, they still do it.

@Dutchess_III So why do you think the EC voted him in, in the face of the majority…],
The Electoral College elected him in under the auspice of the laws that are in place, they are just the mailmen they are not some overseers who can vote however they feel.


@Jaxk “Since nobody gave him the slightest chance to win the primary, then they gave him no chance to win the election”

Actually, the only predictive model with a 100% track record—the 13 keys model developed by Allan Lichtman and Vladimir Keilis-Borok—predicted that Trump would win (while also predicting that Clinton would win the popular vote). Those of us who follow Lichtman’s work saw the writing on the wall while everyone else was still giving Clinton excessively high odds.

“Instead of continuous degradation of Trump, you should be trying to figure out what was wrong with your message.”

These things are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do both. (Then again, I’ve never been a big fan of the Democrats. They need to change their policies, not just their messaging.)

“Postulating that Trump was driven to win the primaries by ‘White Supremacists’, is not trying to denigrate him?”

Irrelevant, since literally no one here has made that argument. If you think otherwise, you need to do a better job of reading.

“There are at best a few hundred ‘White Supremacist’ in the country”

This is wildly false. There are hundreds of white supremacist groups, and the most popular white supremacist website (Stormfront) has over 40,000 unique active users.

“It was the Democrats that pushed Trump to win the primary because they thought he would be the easiest candidate to beat.”

There’s no actual evidence for this, just some speculation that has been spread around on a lot of right-wing echo chambers. And considering how many registered Democrats voted for Trump in the general election, it’s hard to argue that those who voted for him in the primary did it because they were trying to beat him. Trump convinced a lot of people that he was the better candidate—not a majority, of course, but enough people in the right places.

“He paints a picture of someone that should be completely unelectable but won.”

I don’t think this is an accurate portrayal of @MrGrimm888‘s question. He painted a picture of the guy who actually did win, and then asks us to consider what might have happened if one factor had been different. Now, perhaps Trump should be completely unelectable, but recent history has already revealed that he is not actually unelectable.

“Then speculates would a black man be elected to insinuate that race is the only reason he won.”

Again, I don’t think this is accurate. Saying that someone would not have won if he was black is not the same as saying he won because he is white (which is the necessary sub-premise for the claim that race is the only reason he won). There are many reasons why Trump won. The question is whether or not him being black would have been enough to tip the scales. If you think that’s equivalent to saying it was all about race, then you need a class in multivariate logic.

@Hypocrisy_Central “What I take offence to is my white friends and brethren who voted and supported Trump to be made out like idiots, closet bigots or worse. Also to suggest there was so many White Supremacist as to nullify or overtake regular Americans, even if it were the primaries….boggles the mind to say the least.”

Well, to repeat what I said to @Jaxk: Literally no one here has made that argument. If you think otherwise, you need to do a better job of reading.

“they are just the mailmen they are not some overseers who can vote however they feel. ”

False. Electors are free to vote however they like. Only 29 states (plus Washington DC) have laws against faithless electors, no one has ever been penalized for voting against the person to whom they were pledged, only three states have laws allowing them to void the votes of faithless electors, and only one state has ever done so.

@SavoirFaire False. Electors are free to vote however they like.
Then that would gut the whining about Hillary getting more of the total popular vote if the EC are the real voters who can disregard the will of the people and election rules, much less the spirit of free elections.

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Most people who complain about the fact that Clinton won the popular vote also oppose the continued existence of the Electoral College.

@Jaxk How can you not focus on race when race was at the heart of the question?

I don’t think trump would have been elected if he were black. His platform was aimed at the heart of wealthy white people, and against people of color (and women in general.) Put up a wall to keep people of color OUT.

His idea of economic prosperity to raise up people who are already wealthy, and the majority of those are white males.

He also embodies the stereotypical negatives that surround black people, in general, whether it’s deserved or not. Several kids by different mothers, one of who he ignored while she was growing up. Can’t stay married. He’s violent.

There would be nothing in a black trump to appeal to anyone. The trump we have only appeals to the wealthy white, because he is one.

@Dutchess_III “The Trump we have only appeals to the wealthy white, because he is one.”

While it’s true that wealthier people were more likely to vote for Trump, he clearly appealed to a few other groups (e.g., rural voters). One of the best moves he made was to promise the return of mining and manufacturing jobs. A lot of people have argued that he won’t be able to fulfill that particular promise. But as a campaigning move, it won him the right people in the right places.

He appealed to rural white voters by lying through his teeth and he was white. He would not have appealed to them if he’d been black and lying through his teeth.

Plenty of suburban people too.

@Dutchess_III I don’t disagree that several of his campaign promises were either lies or unfeasible. I’m just saying that he didn’t only appeal to wealthy, white people.

But apparently it’s the wealthy white people who finagled his election. I STILL don’t understand how that happened.

Maybe it’s your basic assumption that only wealthy white people benefit from economic growth, more jobs, and better security, That is wrong.

In Trumps world only wealthy people will benefit. He doesn’t care for anyone but those in his economic status. As for economic grown and more jobs, yeah, yeah. What does trump care about the working class? He has so much respect for them that he took more than one to the brink, or over the brink, by refusing to pay his bill, which he could pay easily.

^ In Trumps world only wealthy people will benefit. He doesn’t care for anyone but those in his economic status. As for economic grown and more jobs, yeah, yeah. What does trump care about the working class?
A tree is known by its fruit, if that is truly him and his ideology he will gut the GOP before the mid-term elections, give both the House and the Senate to DNC and be in effect a feckless President and be out in one term. If that is truly him all the whining is for naught because he will implode and be over even without all the bellyaching.

@Hypocrisy_Central “If that is truly him all the whining is for naught because he will implode and be over even without all the bellyaching.”

Politics isn’t just about elections. It’s also about what happens in the time between elections. Whether he implodes or not, Trump’s actions will have real effects both at home and abroad. What you call “whining” and “bellyaching” is people attempting to minimize the collateral damage.

Or creating collateral damage.

What you call “whining” and “bellyaching” is people attempting to minimize the collateral damage.
That is the thing about perception, what one sees as collateral damage, another sees as strategic gains. If Trump in reality, is not what the Rhetoric says then what he does will not be damage at all. One can bomb a city, those in the city who lost something or family will see it as damage, those dropping the bombs will see it is tactics, quashing or vanquishing a foe to preserve the life of their soldiers. What the US will look like 18 months from now is anyone’s guess.

@Jaxk “Or creating collateral damage.”

Perhaps. But I used the word “attempting” on purpose. I am speaking to their intentions.

@Hypocrisy_Central “That is the thing about perception, what one sees as collateral damage, another sees as strategic gains.”

Collateral damage is unintentional, by definition. But if you mean to be acknowledging that the current administration is at best indifferent to the harm its policies may inflict upon innocent people, I certainly won’t disagree.

“One can bomb a city, those in the city who lost something or family will see it as damage, those dropping the bombs will see it is tactics, quashing or vanquishing a foe to preserve the life of their soldiers.”

These are not mutually exclusive. The term “collateral damage” was created to refer to the unintentional victims of strategic actions. It is therefore possible to recognize a single action as both being tactical and having collateral damage.