March 18, 2016

The new Emerson poll has Trump way up in New York, at 69%, with Cruz at 25%, and Kasich at a ridiculous 1%.

What was the point of winning Ohio if not to show that he could do well in places like New York? 1%!

But Trump has a long way to go if he's to beat Hillary in New York, which he's bragged he can do. The poll has Clinton up 55% to 36%. (She beats Cruz 61% to 30%.)

105 comments:

Alexander said...

Make New York great again!

Doesn't matter though. In a year where New York is competitive in a presidential election, the Republicans have already taken New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado; at least one of either Michigan and Pennsylvania; possibly Wisconsin, possibly Maine, and are playing for Oregon and maybe even New Jersey.

In short, if it's a possibility, the election is already over.

jr565 said...

Considering what Cruz said about New York I'm surprised he's doing this well.

Achilles said...

Hillary will not be facing a good loser like Romney. Trump in the word association game called her, rightly, evil. Trump is going to destroy her.

It wasn't the hillary barking add that made it obvious who will win that match up. It was Clinton's facile response.

Nonapod said...

At this point the only thing I can conclude about Kasich is he's trying for a Trump VP nod or something. Other than that he's either:

1. Actually legitimately delusional
2. Just hates Cruz so much that he wants scuttle any faint hope he has
3. Is a moron

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think the poll is somewhat out of date.

sydney said...

@Nonapod- it's #3.

traditionalguy said...

Once The Donald Trumpsplains it in his easy way, The Clinton Foundation's money laundering history will be so busted that the only riots will be at the Dem Convention that dares to nominate that Organized Crime Duo.

Dude1394 said...

The poll is 3/14-3/16. It is timely but as Dr. Althouse stated, winning in NY against Hillary is different than the republican primary. Those delegates are his. He will crush whomever is second.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

I wonder if part of the Trump phenomenon is that increased polarity at the state level means that the also-ran party becomes increasingly radical. The minority Republican party in a liberal state may be much more politically radical compared to a majority Republican party in another state.

Trump's win in Massachusetts is case in point. In 2012, Obama beat the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney by 23 percentage points. A center-left candidate destroyed the center-right opponent. But the radical Trump dominated the Republican primary.

So Trump takes the southern and Appalachian states identified with his base, but he also takes primaries in liberal states whose Republican parties are disorganized and demoralized.

Alexander said...

Also, I fail to see why winning in Ohio would be to demonstrate that he would do well in places like New York. The most that can be said is that superficially they are both 'big' states with a mix or urban and rural. But Ohio does not have one monolithic center - NYC, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo ain't. Nor are the economies of those cities anything like NYC. Nor does Ohio have a history of voting like New York.

If Kasich was going to show he could win in the big, presumably more 'urban' states, then he needed to do well in Florida, Michigan, Virginia and Illinois, as well as a decent showing in Atlanta, Minneapolis, and somewhere in Texas.

If he was going to try and claim that Ohio was a bellwether and was a sign of support among moderates, then he needed to show up strong in New Hampshire, Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, Maine...

But he did none of those, and so all Ohio showed was that he could win his home state. Nobody could reasonably project anything else onto it.

Dan Hossley said...

What was the point? Vanity.

rcocean said...

Its demographically impossible for a Republican to win New York. Simply take all the minority voters: Jews, blacks, Hispanics, PR's, Non-English speaking immigrants etc. and times by 70% and you have almost 50% of the vote right there.

The only way a Republican could win is getting 65-70% of the New York white vote, which has never happened. Too many Caucasian "yellow dog Democrats", government workers, brain dead liberals, and SWPL's.

The same with California. Its now demographically impossible for a Republican POTUS candidate to win, as long as minorities keeping voting 65% Democrat.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Emerson Poll" just reminds me that Keith Emerson died a few days ago.

Is Trump the "Lucky Man"?

Because he plays the press like that song's Moog solo...

I am Laslo.

readering said...

Kasich has a stronger stomach than Rubio. He sees that both Trump and Cruz are loathed by mainstream Republicans and figures that if he sticks it out until the Convention there's a chance he'll be a compromise candidate after several ballots. Like Wendall Wilkie in '40. Rubio could have done the same but did not have it in him (or figured after his repudiation at home that he would not be the person turned to at the Convention under any circumstances).

Alexander said...

Readering,

I take it that Rubio - or someone close to him - knows that a brokered convention is a poisoned chalice. At least if the GOPe goes for someone like Kasich or Walker, they can hope that the Trump/Cruz supporters leave in 16, but come back in 20. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

But Rubio... he's so actively disliked amongst our part of the base, they would run a very real risk of a permanent divide. He is, as you say, not the person under any circumstances.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Nonapod said...3/18/16, 10:32 AM

No, he's going for a deadlocked convention. He plans to be nominated on the 3rd or
5th or 6th or 11th or upteenth ballot.

He's also hoping to pick upsome more delegates, possibly winning California, to make his strategy work.

He's hoping to have neither Trump nor Cruz capable of getting a majority. Cruz will steal some delegates from Trump on the second ballot and even the first ballot maybe, and Trump will hate him for that.

Trump will not support Cruz, and Cruz will not support Trump. They will be thinking of turning to another person, but here comes the argument that the nominee should be somebody who ran in the primaries, not somebody like Romney or Paul Ryan.

And there's nobody else to turn to but...Kasich!

Kasich will strike a deal with Trump - that's his hope - because Trump will prefer Kasich to Cruz. Kasich will not exactly offer him anything - it's not legal anyway, and not enfdorceable in any case, but he'll offer him some honor, and a place in his campaign and maybe he can propose the idea that Donald Trump might be trade negotiator, which might interest him. Striking a deal with Trump will obviate the possibility of Trump running as a third party candidate or endorsing somebody else running as a third party candidate.

Now, of course, Kasich will have to prevent his own delegates form defecting (mostly to Cruz. He canprobably stop those from Ohio from doing so, but he's hoping to ahve otehrs. He'll get committments from Cruz delegates (not Trump delegates - he'll take and need Trump delegates, but only after Donald Trump himself endorsesd him) and some uncommitted - every delegation has 3 delegates not chosen by teh candidate who are committed to vote for the woinner of their state on the first ballot, but not because they want to - the satte party chaorman, andthe male and female members of the national committee.

But he won't exercise them as soon as he gets them. He'll have some hold off switching, with the idea being he should get more votes on each ballot than before.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Does anybody here think Trump striking a deal with Kasich is impossible, or even that ir is less likely than him striking a deal with Ted Cruz??

Now you see, it has to be Trump endorsing Kasich (in exchange for being consulted and being made trade negotiator or something) and not Kasich endorsing Trump (in exchange for Vice President or anything.)

If Kasich were to endorse Trump, his delegates wouldn't follow, but if Trump were to endorse Kasich, a lot of his delegates would go along, and that, together with the Cruz delegates who have given up hope, can get him the nomination on something between the 3rd and 19th ballot.

Actually, if it goes beyond 7 or 8, Kasich's propects will diminish, and the convention will then maybe draft Paul Ryan. But Ryan will be (as neutrally as possibly) encouraging people whow ant him to consider Kasich. Or Rubio, or Ben Carson, even.

rehajm said...

What was the point of winning Ohio if not to show that he could do well in places like New York?

As the establishment's last hope, winning Ohio prevented Trump from doing so. Garnering a sufficient number of votes from proportional states keeps the brokered big steal in play.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And wonder of wonders, it appears that Trump is also favored to win the California primary. I believe by 16% over Cruz. I'm surprised given the numbers of Orange County, Chamber of Commerce types of republicans in the State.

However, as I understand it, the delgates are apportioned on a district by district level and not winner take all. SO Trump may get the lion's share of districts but maybe not all the delegates. It could be a big win for him nevertheless in Primary delegates.

No chance of winning the national election, though. NO Republican of any kind will ever win California in the national election. Ever.

Sammy Finkelman said...

readering said...3/18/16, 10:50 AM

Kasich has a stronger stomach than Rubio. He sees that both Trump and Cruz are loathed by mainstream Republicans and figures that if he sticks it out until the Convention there's a chance he'll be a compromise candidate after several ballots. Like Wendall Wilkie in '40. Rubio could have done the same but did not have it in him (or figured after his repudiation at home that he would not be the person turned to at the Convention under any circumstances).

Rubio just accepted the political advice he got. In fact, actually, that's right, he could have gone on. He does have a problem in that he is, amd was, actually weak among registered Republicans in Florida, but he didn't have the same problems in other parts of the country, on the east coast.

ubio is seen as inexperienced, and too new, while Kasich is seen as meh.


Sammy Finkelman said...

Henry said...3/18/16, 10:46 AM

I wonder if part of the Trump phenomenon is that increased polarity at the state level means that the also-ran party becomes increasingly radical.

That is very true, but it didn't start with Trump. That started with losing elections, so no winner is ever chosen in a primary, if you have closed primaries.

Trump's win in Massachusetts is case in point.

Massachusetts also featured a lot of Democrats re-registering to vote as Republican. That was probaly 90% for Trump. There was some of tahta lso in the year 2000, but that time it was to vote for McCain.

So Trump takes the southern and Appalachian states identified with his base, but he also takes primaries in liberal states whose Republican parties are disorganized and demoralized.

In New York registration is frozen at whatever it was last October. In California party registration is meaningless now, except for Presidential primaries and party officials and for getting political mail. People can switch, or at least switch frrom undeclared until May and you may have people who are otehrwise Democrats re-registering to vote against Trump.

Michael K said...

To all those predicting a Hillary win over Trump, please remember that turnout is going to be the determining factor this year.

I'm not sure a National Security Uprising against Hillary will make Democrats vote for Trump, but it might depress Hillary's turnout severely.

Of course, no one can predict the GOPe's suicide impulse.

Sebastian said...

"But the radical Trump dominated the Republican primary." Radical in manner, not substance. Apart from the wall and trade wars, Trump's positions, insofar as he has "positions," appear to the left of most Republicans. Populist repudiation of conservative positions is part of his appeal.

Achilles said...

Nonapod said...
"At this point the only thing I can conclude about Kasich is he's trying for a Trump VP nod or something. Other than that he's either:

1. Actually legitimately delusional
2. Just hates Cruz so much that he wants scuttle any faint hope he has
3. Is a moron"

You aren't thinking. The nevertrumpers aren't big on thinking.

Sammy Finkelman said...
"Does anybody here think Trump striking a deal with Kasich is impossible, or even that ir is less likely than him striking a deal with Ted Cruz??"

Trump is way ahead of you. Trump and Cruz had a deal since day one. Trump made the deal with Kasich midstream. Neither will be VP is my guess.

Henry said...

Massachusetts also featured a lot of Democrats re-registering to vote as Republican

In Massachusetts party registration has to happen about 3 weeks before the primary. Unenrolled voters can vote in either primary. I don't think you saw a lot of voters switching parties in February to vote for Trump in March. Maybe the unenrolled voters broke for Trump, but I doubt it. I can't find the actual voting percentage of unenrolled voters, but exit polls show that Trump did the same among self-identified independents as Republicans and the same among self-identified moderates as conservatives.

In New York registration is frozen at whatever it was last October. In California party registration is meaningless now, except for Presidential primaries and party officials and for getting political mail. People can switch, or at least switch frrom undeclared until May and you may have people who are otehrwise Democrats re-registering to vote against Trump.

I think you're still putting far too much emphasis on the idea of crossover voters. But my idea of the radicalization of conservative voters in liberal states holds true outside of the facts of party registration.

Dan Hossley said...

What was point? Kasich's campaign is evidence that Trump is right. He wouldn't be in this race if he was spending his own money. Kasich is simply the public face of a group of special interests that are fronting him the money to run.

I would be interesting and useful for FoxNews or CNN to ask questions of the candidates during one of their so-called debates about the special interests that are funding the candidates and tie those groups to the positions that candidates are taking. It would answer the question of who is the most venal?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Geez, people really don't like Cruz. Republican Senators I can understand, but it's surprising just how much regular voters seem to dislike the guy.

Interesting line from the linked .pdf: "Dissatisfaction with government (47%) and the state of the economy (29%) are the top two issues for Republican voters in the Empire State. Among Democrats, the foremost concerns are the economy,cited by 25%, and race relations, mentioned by 18%."

Race relations! What a year, what a year.

Amexpat said...

Something is wrong with the Emerson poll. RealClear's aggregate poll has Kasich at 9.5%. That's got to be at least the anybody but Trump or Cruz vote in NY.

EMD said...

Populist repudiation of conservative positions

Not really. Populist repudiation of conservative leadership in Washington. People are extremely pissed about the Capitol District serving itself first, party be damned. They are tired of "we will control spending" morphing into omnibus bills. They are tired of McConnell/Boehner/Ryan bootlicking and fecklessness. They are tired of being lied to by their own party.

Nonapod said...

Achilles said...

You aren't thinking. The nevertrumpers aren't big on thinking.

Sammy Finkelman said...
"Does anybody here think Trump striking a deal with Kasich is impossible, or even that ir is less likely than him striking a deal with Ted Cruz??"

Trump is way ahead of you. Trump and Cruz had a deal since day one. Trump made the deal with Kasich midstream. Neither will be VP is my guess.

First off, I'm not a "nevertrumper", I will vote for him if he's the candidate.

So you're theory is Trump made deals to those guys for, what? Maybe Supreme Court justice for Teddy and some kind of cabinet position for Kasich? I know that Trump is the legendary master deal maker but I find that hard to believe. But then again I've been wrong about so much over the course of this weird election that I'm starting to think anything is possible.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"Massachusetts also featured a lot of Democrats re-registering to vote as Republican"

Henry said...

I don't think you saw a lot of voters switching parties in February to vote for Trump in March. Maybe the unenrolled voters broke for Trump, but I doubt it. I can't find the actual voting percentage of unenrolled voters, but exit polls show that Trump did the same among self-identified independents as Republicans and the same among self-identified moderates as conservatives.

I read or heard on the radio that about 20,000 Democrats re-registered as Republicans in Massachusetts. This was probably going on since late last year, not just since the Iowa caucuses or so.

I don't know how significant that is in percentages.

I see here: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts

There were altogether about 631,000 votes cast in the Massachusetts Republican Presidential primary on March 1, 2016, which was the date it was held. If Trump got an extra 20,000 votes, that would just over 3% of the vote total, and without them, he would have gotten, say, 47.6% instead of 49.3%

BrianE said...

The Republicans need to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The next test for Kasich is Pennsylvania, now that Rubio has dropped his lawsuit invalidating his name on the primary ballot. If he can show strength there, his value continues to rise.

chickelit said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...NO Republican of any kind will ever win California in the national election. Ever.

True. And sadly, that is the political paradigm the DNC seeks to impose nationwide, given the chance.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think you're still putting far too much emphasis on the idea of crossover voters. But my idea of the radicalization of conservative voters in liberal states holds true outside of the facts of party registration.

I did read that where people who are not registered in a party can vote in a primary, they tend most often to vote in one particular party's primary. What would that be? 75% or 80% of the time? And that makes sense.

But the primary election electorate shouldn't be so extreme when people do not have to declare membership in a party first, both because there are some people in the party they are less close to whom they want to vote for, and because they don't have to seem to sign on to anything.

I wasn't thinking about radicalization of conservative voters, but of the radicalization of voters registered in a party. And not that they become more radical - I mean, there are not really very many people who attend meetings - but rather, people who are more radical cluster in a minority party. I think this has to be stronger where there is party registration.

If there is no party registration, people who don't normally vote in a party's primary can vote in the other party's primary if it is a strongly contested primary, and the primary election electorate won't be so off to one fringe.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Anyway, the California Republican party - especially when you are thinking only of people who register in a party where registration is not necessary for anything any more except for voting in a presidential primary or for party officials - has probably become pretty extreme, especially on the immigration issue.

This is maybe slightly counterbalanced this year by people re-registering to vote in the Prediential primary for somebody not named Donald Trump.

Kasich's hope would be hoping there are enough "moderates" so that if Cruz and Trump split the extreme vote he wins. But are there enough of them, and anyway, the stop-Trump people would vote for Cruz if he looked like he was stronger.

Kasich has got to have a plan for Caifornia if he wants to stop Trump and gatehr enough delegates to be a significant factor.

It's not winner taker all, after all. There are 3x53 = 159 delegates selected who are winner take all by Congressional district, and 13 winner take all statewide.

That's 3 even for districts with very few Republicans like South Central Los Angeles, where people may be registered Republican because they wanted to get jobs (gathering petition signatures or something - under the old rules maybe)


Bob Ellison said...

Here's something I don't get: the poll results seem waaaaaay high compared to past results and total populations of eligible voters.

Take Florida. There are probably about 9 million registered voters there. The primary results show that about 3.5 million people voted in the primary. That's almost 40%.

That ratio sounds implausible. Do 40% of the voter-registered people you know vote in primaries? We barely reach 50% in the general election. Most of the people I know don't even know where or how to vote in the primary.

There are similar numbers in other states. I chose Florida as an example because supposedly Trump and Hillary both got >1m votes there, out of a total population of 20m, including aliens, children, etc.

Something smells fishy.

Sammy Finkelman said...

When Republicans win a Presdential election, they tend to win Ohio. Florida is less easy but is one they won't want to lose. They always look like they have good chances in Wisconsin, but there's some kind of cheating possible. They always strive for Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania is not a swing state - New Jersey would be easier.

In 1968, Nicon carried New Jersey, but not New York or Pennsylvania. The same thing with Gerald Ford in 1976.

Things may have changed slightly since, or perhaps it is affeced by what kind of an effort a campaign makes. In 2004, Bush got 40.1% in New York, 48.5% in Pennsylvania and 46.2% in New Jersey.

Sammy Finkelman said...

There was very heavy campaigning in Florida.

Robert Cook said...

"I saw that fucking Marxist Schumer...."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sammy Finkelman said...

Sammy Finkelman said...

"Does anybody here think Trump striking a deal with Kasich is impossible, or even that ir is less likely than him striking a deal with Ted Cruz??"

Nonapod said...3/18/16, 12:41 PM

Trump is way ahead of you. Trump and Cruz had a deal since day one.

That fell apart around January.

Trump made the deal with Kasich midstream.

I don't know, but what I think is, Kasich tried to avoid attacking anyone.

Neither will be VP is my guess.

What I'm saying is, Kasich probably thinks that if Trump sees he can't win, he can strike a deal with Trump. And Trump will choose him rather than Cruz, who won't offer him anything.

Kasich will offer him honor; cabinet and other positions for people Trump recommends - not any particular position, but a committment to appoint some people to some number of important positions or he's a double-crosser; regular consultation maybe; and even something like trade negotiator, or membership on a to-be-created presidential commission for himself.

Cruz can't offer Trump the same deal, because nobody would believe he could be trusted to fulfill it. Trump won't have any ideological objections to Kasich.

Now, of course, all this hinges on neither Trump nor Cruz getting a majority in multiple ballots. He can count on Cruz, and his delegates, not switching to Trump. Trump's delegates might start to switch to Cruz, but that would make Trump angry or bitter. That's where Kasich makes his move.

Sammy Finkelman said...

schumer is not a Marxist - he's a big liar.

I saw him in 1989 claim to have foretold the savings and loan scandal, and to be the only memberof Congress on some committee or soemthing favorable to Israel in some way.

buwaya said...

"I saw that fucking Marxist Schumer...."

He's about as Marxist as Chavez. Or for that matter Lula, or Ceausescu.
Which means par for the course as real, more-or-less modern Marxists that get some power go.
Any "Marxists" that aren't like that are rather unrealistic, unworldly sorts, that are irrelevant.

I forget who said that line about Felix Dzerzhinsky (the founder of the Cheka, later the KGB) - that such a position required one to be either a saint or a scoundrel, and "Iron Felix" was the last saint. This seems to apply to Marxists in general.

Curious George said...

"Dust Bunny Queen said...
No chance of winning the national election, though. NO Republican of any kind will ever win California in the national election. Ever."

I assume you mean moving forward. And Cali keeps going the way it is we can probably just give it back to Mexico.

Michael K said...

Democrats are starting to feel buyer's remorse over Hillary.

Oh Oh.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Candidates have until March 26 to present petitions to get on the Presidential primary ballot in California, and voters have until May 23 to switch (or at least choose) parties.

Terry said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
"I saw that fucking Marxist Schumer...."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
3/18/16, 1:12 PM

If a marxist is a person who believes economics underlies all human relations, Schumer is probably close to being a marxist (has he ever given any other basis for human relations?). So are most Libertarians.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I don't think Schumer really likes freedom of speech - or at least he likes the Democratic Party more. Now, he's not been in a position to do anything.

He'd go along with Hillary turning the Internet over to the control of foreign despotisms, which was stopped by the Republican Congress when Obama tried to do it.

Achilles said...

Sammy Finkelman said...

"Trump is way ahead of you. Trump and Cruz had a deal since day one.

That fell apart around January."

It didn't fall apart. They agreed to compete when it was down to just them. They were teaming up on Bush and Rubio from the start. As soon as it became clear they were the top 2 they agreed to go after each other. When the dust settles they will come together again. Their target has always been the political establishment. They have worked together to defenestrate the GOPe.

They both thought they could win and are doing everything they can to win. But in the end they will be back together. Trump has been talking to all of the candidates behind the scenes. There are clearly deals being made. Chris Christie has had his eye on Attorney for a long time. Carson is going to be HHS. He even said he was promised a job.

This is just me hoping and wishing but also a long shot guess based off things I read. Cruz for the supreme court. Rubio goes to K street and is never heard from again. Christie AG. Newt Chief of Staff. Carson HHS are locked up. Rand Paul was clearly helping Trump at the debates before he dropped and could very well end up Secretary of the Treasury. I think Fiorina and Trump are "negotiating" still. She will be the pit bull he brings in to go after Hillary for VP.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
"I saw that fucking Marxist Schumer...."

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

I know Schumer is not a real Marxist. He hasn't done anything to push mass government sponsored killings.

Yet.

Bay Area Guy said...

Kasich is merely a "Favorite Son" candidate, who wins his own state, but none others. This has happened many times in past elections.

Kasich can't win the nomination, and only helps Trump, by taking away votes from Cruz.

Trump will likely win the primary.

Trump supporters need to start pivoting to the General Election. That means, (1) directing the shots at Hillary and (2) making nice-nice with all the non-Trump supporters, dare I say, even the establishment types. The first is easy, the second may be awkward. To win, Trump needs 70 Million votes, and there's not enough angry white males on the Althouse blog (I kid here!) to reach this mark.

The RCP average has Trump losing to Hillary, 47-41.

I do think Trump can make up this ground. I am not sold on the idea that Hillary wins this. But I do think Trump and his supporters have to start moving their mindset to a different kind of campaign than the primary, because he/they will have to unite with the candidates and supporters they just vanquished. To win Florida, Trump may even to need to lunch with Jeb! It's part of the strange, circuitous path to winning.

My 2 cents.

Henry said...

Small m marxists face off against small f fascists in small a agitprop.

There are other words to describe political persuasions than these satisfying bludgeons.

Nonapod said...

Calling Schumer a Marxist is giving him too much credit. Honestly I don't believe Schumer follows any standard political ideology other than pure distilled opportunism. Marxists fall into two categories: Thugs and Idealists. Schumer is neither.

Gusty Winds said...

There are exactly zero states that McCain and Romney lost to Obama that Cruz could flip.

The #nevertrump movement is willing to hand the White House to Hillary because they are comfortable with the status quo. The "true conservatives" like, Sykes, Krystol, National Review, and now even Lindsey Graham know all of this.

They are proving to be everything the Trump supporters suspected. Even, sadly, Paul Ryan.

Gusty Winds said...

If the #nevertrump movement is so damn sure Trump cannot win in November, then give him the nomination and let him lose.

He'll be one and done, and 30% of their voter base will not flee.

They all know Cruz can't win.

The #nevertrump movement fears he CAN win. That's why they are doggy paddling.

Amanda said...

In a continuing feud with the WSJ, trump whines and demands an apopolgy.

://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wall-street-journal-tells-trump-truth-hurts

"“The truth hurts,” the editorial read, “though Mr. Trump would rather walk down Fifth Avenue shooting the messenger.”

Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to trash the “dummies” on the newspaper's editorial board. The GOP frontrunner took issue with their argument that Hillary Clinton has a million more primary votes than he does and would trounce him in a general election match-up.

Actually his rise has been cleared by the large and fractured GOP field,” the WSJ editorial board fired back. “Of the 20.35 million GOP primary votes cast so far, he has received 7.54 million, or a mere 37%. Despite the media desire to call him unstoppable, Mr. Trump is the weakest Republican front-runner since Gerald Ford in 1976.”

The editorial board pointed out that though Trump may have diehard followers, his unfavorables are also remarkably high: “The Real Clear Politics polling average shows twice as many adults have negative views (61%) than positive views (32.5%) of Mr. Trump.”

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...

"Trump supporters need to start pivoting to the General Election. That means, (1) directing the shots at Hillary and (2) making nice-nice with all the non-Trump supporters, dare I say, even the establishment types. The first is easy, the second may be awkward. To win, Trump needs 70 Million votes, and there's not enough angry white males on the Althouse blog (I kid here!) to reach this mark.

The RCP average has Trump losing to Hillary, 47-41."

Trump supporters need to make nice with the Cruz contingent. The cronies and DC consultants can get lost. Rubio can retire on K Street never to be heard from again. Cruz and Trump supporters are the coalition that will move forward.

People are forgetting that Cruz and Trump started this race with an obvious deal on the table. It is still there and they will be together again at the end. Just like the 2 candidates are going at it now so at the supporters. Happens every election and it will happen again.

Cruz will bring in the small government people and Trump will bring in the Rand Paul contingent and working class whites that used to vote democrat but voted for Regan. Trump will crush Hillary head to head. She is just a terrible candidate as well as a terrible person.

Gusty Winds said...

I think it is hilarious and completely disingenuous that everyone says, "Trump cannot beat Hillary!"

If that's the case, relax and let it happen. Don't fight it. Enjoy it.

But the real fear is, rationally, that he can beat Hillary.

Achilles said...

Amanda said...

"Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to trash the “dummies” on the newspaper's editorial board. The GOP frontrunner took issue with their argument that Hillary Clinton has a million more primary votes than he does and would trounce him in a general election match-up."

Trump had 16 opponents. Hillary had 1 that pulled more than 1% and is a socialist to boot. The republican primaries pulled 17.3% of eligible voters through the first 12 races. The democrat primaries pulled 11.7%.

Simple math says if Trump gets 70% of the voters that turned out for the republican primaries and Hillary gets 100% of the voters that turned out for Dems Trump wins.

Trump will easily beat 70%. Hillary will not get 100%. This on top of how pathetic a candidate Hillary is and how depraved a person you would have to be to vote for her and Trump pointing that out for 6 months. Trump will win 40+ states.

Bob Ellison said...

The #neverhillary people are much stronger on that point than the #nevertrump ones.

I think Gusty Winds is correct: Hillary fears Trump, and she knows he has a point when he keeps saying he hasn't even started on her yet. One 15-second viral video (and a well-made one) does not a negative campaign make.

David said...

Trump is going to have trouble overcoming the avalanche of slime that the left, some Republicans and the media are going to unleash over the next few months. It is about to start and it's going to be stinking rot of the highest order.

Fabi said...

The anti-Trump WSJ editorial board molests the data so hard that even our trolls get aroused.

With ~60% of the primary and caucus votes cast, Trump has already received 75% of Mitt's 2012 vote total -- in a primary race with far more candidates. Liars, statisticians, and damned anti-Trumpers. The Donald is making a complete ass out of a lot of allegedly-intelligent people. I'm loving every minute of it. But still rooting for Cruz.

traditionalguy said...

Dire warning that unnamed people with un-named slime are secretly carrying around a briefcase full of scandal on Trump is McCarthyism 101. That is more of an Onion Report.



Big Mike said...

@David, Trump will have no trouble overcoming the avalanche. First, because he's demonstrated that responding to negative campaigning against him with a hearty "F U" and a counterattack works with the voters, and second, because he will be launching his own avalanche, merely by telling pointing out inconvenient facts about Hillary Clinton (and her husband) that the press would dearly love to keep buried.

Trump represents a major opportunity for upstate New Yorkers to give The City a one-fingered salute. Do you think they'll pass it up?

Oso Negro said...

He could do it - as the Democrat that he is. Maybe he will switch parties after he wins the Republican nomination.

samanthasmom said...

In March 1980 Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 58% to 33% in the Gallup poles.

I Callahan said...

At this point the only thing I can conclude about Kasich is he's trying for a Trump VP nod or something. Other than that he's either:

Actually, it's #4, which is to make it so Trump doesn't get 1,237 delegates so it'll force the GOP to do a brokered convention.

Terry said...


Blogger Amanda said...
In a continuing feud with the WSJ, trump whines and demands an apopolgy.

Was he apoplectic when he demanded an apopolgy?
The WSJ is pro open borders. They are convinced that it is good for the economy, decades of poor economic growth while the borders remain open notwithstanding. The WSJ editors seem to believe that you counter excessive government regulation by increasing the number of H1B visas. This because they aren't terribly bright at the WSJ. They may be brighter than Trump, however.

Achilles said...

In the general Trump will get more Cruz voters to turn out for him than Hillary will get Bernie voters to turn out for her.

Trump and Cruz supporters are going to reform the Reagan coalition of conservatives and working class voters. This time I think it is highly unlikely that the WASPs like the Bushes are allowed to coopt that coalition again and twist it into what the GOPe has become.

The democrat party will have no choice but to turn away from the corrupt pol's like Obama and Hillary who serve Wall Street and turn their followers into paupers. They will have to go back to the unions instead which will make them a more decent group of people.

Amanda said...

"......go back to the unions instead which will make them a more decent group of people."

Wholeheartedly agree.

Amanda said...

I recall all the anti union sentiment among the right, especially during the protests in Wisconsin. It would be sweet revenge if the unions rose again, but I doubt Trump is pro union. Do you think Trump is pro union, anyone?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Achilles

In the general Trump will get more Cruz voters to turn out for him than Hillary will get Bernie voters to turn out for her.

That's probably true, but it misses a segment of voters you don't like, but whom Trump might need to win -- namely Kasich, Rubio, establishment GOP voters.

I like passion and emotion and verbal/written jousting, just like the next fellow. But indulge me on this dispassionate question:

There's a chunk of "Romney voters" out there -- you may call them crony insiders or Rinos -- that I believe, mathematically, are necessary for Trump to win the General election.

So, although Trump should and will get the bulk of Cruz supporters, does he need to get a chunk of the Althouse-commentator-disfavored Ryan, McConnell, Romney-types?

I tend to think he does. I see Trump's support as very deep with certain segments, but not broad yet. I hope it does broaden, though, because I want him to beat Hillary.

My 2 cents.

M Jordan said...

The anti-Trump crowd are jumping all over Trump's numbers against Hillary but it begs the question. Trump is doing 5 points better against her than Cruz. In a primary, that's the number that matters. If Trump can't win NY. Cruz really, really can't.

Gusty Winds said...

Amanda said...

Do you think Trump is pro union, anyone?

When your factory job up and moves to China or Mexico, it doesn't really matter if your in a Union or not.

In that sense, Trump is pro-American worker, something neither the Democrats or Republicans have been for 20 years. They know this. And this is why they fear Trump can actually win.

Terry said...

The unions can't rise again without protectionist trade policies. Free trade is the same as open immigration, the only difference is you outsource the jobs Americans are doing to immigrants instead. The foreign born still get them.

Amanda said...

Clinton is actually doing better against Trump in this poll compared to Bernie. Her favorable ratings are also way up. Maybe white males aren't digging her, but others are.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/18/emerson-poll-hillary-tops-trump-by-17-sanders-beats-trump-by-19/

"Looking ahead to the general election, the two Democrats do equally well in a head-to-head matchup with Trump. Clinton (55% to 36%) and Sanders (53% to 36%) lead the reality show star by 19 and 17 points, respectively.

The MoE on the full survey is a much more reasonable 3.5% on a sample of 768 likely general-election voters, so these numbers are a little more solid. The only bright spot for Trump in the general-election numbers is that Cruz does worse at 61/30, but that’s a cold comfort in a general election, where Electoral College votes are winner-take-all.

Furthermore, these numbers are almost exactly the same as two successive Siena polls got in the past two months, surveys with even larger sample sizes and a traditional live-call model. In February, the race was 57/32 Clinton, and two weeks ago Siena had it at 57/34. That’s close to the margin by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 (62/36). All three polls show no upside for Republicans by having Trump on the ticket, not even with New York being his home state and the base of his business operations. Clinton may be underperforming Obama, but not by much."

Gusty Winds said...

What does Scott Adams say about Trump being at 69% in the Master Persuader Filter?

In the 2d world it might just look like another poll number, but in the 3d world Marlena comes to mind...

Mom2Es said...

FWIW, every Rand Paul supporter in my circles save one has already decided to vote LP in the general. The one that hasn't will support Cruz but not Trump and is planning to vote LP if Trump is the nominee.

I don't see Trump bringing that contingent to heel.

Matt said...

Consider this for a minute. In order for Trump to win the White House he would need to get 64 more electoral college points than Romney got in 2012. How might he get those? If he wins all the states Romney won plus Florida [29], Ohio [18], Colorado [9] and Nevada [6] he would still lose by 2 electoral college points.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Clinton is actually doing better against Trump in this poll compared to Bernie.

Another indication this poll is all wrong.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Not that you might not ecpect Sanders to do worse in the end, but that's not what is polling now.

Shouting Thomas said...

This Amanda character is around here 24/7.

She's either a paid DNC operative or a bot.

How much do you get paid to bleat out DNC propaganda on a weblog? How many weblogs do you suppose she/he/it is assigned?

Michael K said...

"I tend to think he does. I see Trump's support as very deep with certain segments, but not broad yet. I hope it does broaden, though, because I want him to beat Hillary."

I agree and think almost all GOP voters will end up voting for him if he is the nominee.

There is a small suicidal squad but I don't think there are that many of they see he is winning.

AReasonableMan said...

When Trump began his rise in the polls I thought it would tear the heart out of the Democratic party. It was a historic opportunity for the Red team to grab working class white votes and create a new dominant coalition. For decades now it has been a national disgrace that a nominally left-leaning party would pay so little attention to the economic plight of working class whites. The Democrat party deserved to die. What I didn't expect was that the Red team would instead embark on a murder-suicide mission to kill off both the Trump candidacy and itself. It is literally madness and it is driven by class hatred. The hatred of the elites for lower class whites.

buwaya said...

"If he wins all the states Romney won plus Florida [29], Ohio [18], Colorado [9] and Nevada [6] he would still lose by 2 electoral college points."

Pennsylvania - 20
New Hampshire -3
Michigan - 16
New Mexico - 5

Bay Area Guy said...

@Michael K

I hope you're right, Sir. I just saw that Romney is voting for Cruz in the primary (which is fine, but awful late), but then he goes off trying to trash Trump with DNC talking points.

I like Romney and voted for him, but he needs to shut up about Trump, jeez.

It will be an interesting election -- we will see many ups and downs, twists and turns.

If Trump can confound and triumph over the Dems, as he has confounded and triumphed over many Repubs, life will be good.

Shouting Thomas said...

The hatred of the elites for lower class whites.

I'm surprised to see this coming from you, ARM.

Not just lower class whites, but middle class whites as well.

Trump (who I don't endorse just because I'm not into endorsing candidates) is succeeding because he's offering to represent a class of voters who've been ridiculed and disenfranchised for 50 years.

M Jordan said...

These matchup numbers at this point have value but not superficially so. Trump has been fighting an onslaught of negativity from the right and the left. I've not seen this in my lifetime (though I've heard Goldwater faced a little of it). Once he gets the nomination and unification begins -- and trust me, begin it will, perhaps to the point of a runaway bandwagon), then we should take head-to-head numbers against Hillary more seriously.

Measuring the race now is like taking the overnight low temp and thinking it's the high of the day.

grackle said...

Kasich is simply the public face of a group of special interests that are fronting him the money to run.

Accuracy! Give this sharpshooter a brand new Kewpie doll!

The #nevertrump movement fears he CAN win. That's why they are doggy paddling.

Another bull’s-eye!

The right of center moderate pragmatist Trump wants to win. The voters want to win. The purity gatekeeper conservatives want to lose.

Ideologues are rarely practical; are almost always unrealistic. In this case they would rather ram the iceberg than allow the deckchairs be moved from their assigned places. But in Trump they are up against an opponent who knows how to pull strings that they don’t even know exist.

Furthermore, the #nevertrump movement has an inflated idea of their importance. They can’t stop the Democrats even after we, the voters, have handed them both houses. And I believe they will fail as well in their silly campaign against their own party’s frontrunner. Proving yourself to be both ineffective AND irrelevant is not necessarily the best way to ensure your survival as self-appointed gatekeepers. They are stepping into the octagon with a fighter that can strike as well as he can ground and pound(my fellow white alpha males will know what this means).

Trump’s victory will not be over policy – it will be about attitude. The voters love his attitude. The Democrats, the #nevertrump movement, the rightwing ideologues, the pundits, the intellectuals, the academics – none of them are capable of understanding of what is actually happening. They can fuss about policy, purity and obscure issues all they want – it will make no difference.

There’s much chatter about Trump’s “unfavorables.” Trump is a man who could sell ice cubes to an Eskimo. He’ll start turning around those unfavorables as soon as he is nominated.

Here’s the simple, central fact: Trump is smarter than all of them put together. He has a superior grasp of reality. That’s the real reason he is winning.

Trump will destroy the Democrat in the general election. They are realizing this now. That is why they are teaming up with the rightwing ideologues in the #nevertrump movement to stop Trump.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Shouting Thomas,

Trump (who I don't endorse just because I'm not into endorsing candidates) is succeeding because he's offering to represent a class of voters who've been ridiculed and disenfranchised for 50 years.

I think that's right. There's something like 93 million able-bodied people who are no longer in the work-force.

That's about 33% of Americans out of the workforce, highest rate since 1978, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, while I too did not support Trump in the primaries, I am very sympathetic to this large, mostly ignored, block of citizens. Clearly, they deserve a voice, and it looks like it will be the Donald.

Matt said...

grackle
A Trumpbot, huh? Maybe take a step back or two and realize Trump hasn't been as successful as you think he has in his businesses. Also consider his negatives. In order to win he has to take [at least] 65% to 70% white males and 65% white females. Then he needs Hispanic votes and African American votes, which will not be easy.

Bush got 40% of Hispanics in 2000, McCain got 31%, while Romney got 27%. Trump would be lucky to get 20%. Romney got around 10% of the African American vote. Trump won't get much more. Then there are women voters. Women vote 7 to 8 percentage points more for Democrats than men do. Can Trump win? Yes. But it will be a challenge in which he will have to do better than any GOP candidate has since 2004 by winning more than the white male vote.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Lol. Althouse is funny.

She posts these as if any coherent conclusion can be drawn any longer from Republican voting patterns.

Hilarious!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Trump (who I don't endorse just because I'm not into endorsing candidates)..

It's funny how you keep feeling a need to qualify it like that.

Well, I guess there goes the press conference with Trump and Old Dawgz.

Maybe he can get you to chime in with him on a three-way call the next time he phones it in to Fox and Friends.

Lol.

Big Mike said...

@Amanda, you can go down to Appalachia and ask a UMW member whether any Democrats support their union.

tim in vermont said...

Trump can't be stopped and can't win.

Fabi said...

Very nice summation, grackle. The unprecedented alliance of lefties with a fair-sized swath of the right is in a panic to stop him because he is such an unknown. He probably can't be bought, he's not beholden to any of them for his future, and he has nothing to lose -- that makes for a credible threat to their apple cart.

Bob Ellison said...

This bears repeating and discussion as a conversational gambit:

AReasonableMan said...

When Trump began his rise in the polls I thought it would tear the heart out of the Democratic party. It was a historic opportunity for the Red team to grab working class white votes and create a new dominant coalition. For decades now it has been a national disgrace that a nominally left-leaning party would pay so little attention to the economic plight of working class whites. The Democrat party deserved to die. What I didn't expect was that the Red team would instead embark on a murder-suicide mission to kill off both the Trump candidacy and itself. It is literally madness and it is driven by class hatred. The hatred of the elites for lower class whites.


Leftists tend to see Trump as a rightist thing, and rightists tend to see Trump as a leftist thing.

I say Trump will win, oh, maybe 35% of Republicans (would've been 30% of Dems if he had run that way), and another 60% of low-info/angry voters in the middle, along with quite a few Dems. Enough to win the presidency. (The math comes down to something like 52/48, Trump over Hillary. Ew.)

Let's suppose that Hillary wins, though. Isn't that a suicide mission of a sort? She is not Bill Clinton, whose main accomplishment is having got totally rolled by the Newt and the GOP in the 90s. She has demonstrated malevolence and incompetence in politics, in foreign policy, and in management. Four years of Hillary could make Carter 1980 look like a dream administration.

Shouting Thomas said...


It's funny how you keep feeling a need to qualify it like that


Seems sensible to me. If I express my views on issues on which I agree with Trump, the "Trumpkin" insults automatically kick in.

There are things I like about Trump, particularly his all out assault on PC censorship. Any artist with any sense should be applauding this, but the arts are too sated with leftism for most artists to appreciate this.

grackle said...

Maybe take a step back or two and realize Trump hasn't been as successful as you think he has in his businesses.

What I realize: I realize that Trump has amassed billions in worth. That fact speaks for itself. But keep talking about Trump’s lack of success and see how far it gets you.

Also consider his negatives. In order to win he has to … [fill in the blank].

Trump has already set records in voter turnout, probably with more to come. No GOP candidate has been as popular; that is why Trump has won most of the primaries. I believe Trump will make most of his “negatives” go down. Also; who else is there? Cruz will have to win more delegates than Trump in the primaries(not in a brokered convention) to convince me that Cruz can win the general. But he won’t and he can’t so Cruz is a dead end.

Matt said...

Bob Ellison
"(The math comes down to something like 52/48)"

Where are you deriving this math from? The primaries? First, the general election is about the electoral college not popular vote. Second, the primaries don't correlate with the general election. So I'm guessing you are applying your gut to the math. Don't drink too much beer celebrating early. :^)

Matt said...

grackle
I've already accepted that Trump has won the GOP primaries. I was writing about the general election. He has a lot to overcome as the demographic numbers I pointed out. As far as his business ventures, sure, he has made billions but not everything he touches turns to gold. Trump steaks, Trump airlines, Trump vodka, Trump university, etc... I don't see the negatives coming back up. However, when there are only two candidates running anything can happen. Hillary is no Obama.

Bob Ellison said...

Matt said, Bob Ellison
"(The math comes down to something like 52/48)"

Where are you deriving this math from?


Matt, you're right that my post was sloppy. I apologize for quickie arithmetic.

Let's say the candidates are Trump and Hillary, and each gets 35%.

That leaves 30%. It's an extremely squishy group.

If Trump indeed wins 60% of the remainder, then he wins with about 53%.

Past results suggest that first-time POTUS candidates have trouble landsliding like that, though.

The tendency of regression toward the mean would suggest that all of these numbers should be downsized.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Trump makes strange bedfellows. Lots of folks who don't agree w/ each other on much. Big tent. Anti-PC is not the exact center pole, but it's the one that comes to mind most often. I'd say the center is more about pride in *our* civilization and a demand for people who want to live in the US to be a part of that civilization.

California state repubs+dems in congress got on the CA-2016 ballot an anti-English (Quebec style) 'bilingual' edu bill - openly hostile to the idea of a single America. In the 90s, voters stopped mostly-Spanish 'bilingual' public edu with a 60%+ favored initiative. I think the results have been fantastic. I have no idea why these people are trying to resurrect a failed, divisive program. If there are kids who are slow mentally and don't pick up English, they certainly aren't going to succeed under any other regime.

I recently looked at 'bilingual edu makes you smarter and more creative' evidence (3 mo old baby girl). Evidence is extremely sketchy and also heavily leftist-consensus promoted. Edu research is worse than psych research. Mostly phony.

The bottom line is that if you have a system where some kids are receiving most of their instruction in Spanish only, it's anti-melting-pot and I think will also harm outcomes for them. Smart kids learn English pretty quick, and more importantly learn that it's cool to be fluent in English, which is pro-America (hispanics are half the movie box office dollars in CA and they're not watching spanish or spanish-dubbed flicks) and anyway these kids are *getting* the supposed brain benefits by having Spanish speaking friends+relatives available them.

The brain benefits are: even though it slightly retards acquisition of both languages, it keeps the mind limber (dementia resistant) + aware of different language rulesets, so able to range farther in certain types of creativity. Still, there's no hard controlled-study evidence that I've seen.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I think the motivation is: divisive anti-melting-pot is good for the D future if they can hold onto all their NAM clients. They don't want us to be friends. I love 1st-2nd gen immigrants who speak English well. It's a sign of good faith (and good human potential - not everyone can master a second language after childhood).

grackle said...

I've already accepted that Trump has won the GOP primaries. I was writing about the general election. He has a lot to overcome as the demographic numbers I pointed out.

Perhaps it would help us understand the demographics better if we could peruse the commentor’s sources. A link or two would be helpful. Until then I’m skeptical.

In the general election I believe Trump will trounce the Democrat. Unless, of course, Trump is dumped in a brokered convention and someone else is given the nomination. Then the election goes to the Democrat – which is what the eGOP wants; they WANT to lose so Trump will cease being a danger to their place in the political spectrum. Trump will be blamed for their failure of imagination, their failure of vision, their failure to inspire.

Trump may be the best campaigner we’ve seen in politics in the modern era. If the eGOP would embrace Trump the GOP could accrue the new voters, independents and Trump Democrats that Trump brings to the table. That could mean a fresher and more attractive dynamic for the GOP for years into the future of politics in America. But they would rather not put their status in jeopardy. Better to be a big fish in a little pond than an average-sized fish in an ocean.

Edu research is worse than psych research. Mostly phony.

All research has become suspect, even the scientific and medical research. The social “sciences” are probably worse but the physical sciences are not at all immune … to the allure of easy research funding by finding PC results their patrons approve of. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to know.

http://tinyurl.com/llrs3u4

http://tinyurl.com/hvrz6qg

http://tinyurl.com/nq4wh8g

http://tinyurl.com/qghy22u

http://tinyurl.com/h4uwct9

http://tinyurl.com/qzsn7kn