May 5, 2016

"Although we remain convinced that Hillary Clinton is very vulnerable and would probably lose to most other Republicans..."

"Donald Trump's historic unpopularity with wide swaths of the electorate - women, millennials, independents and Latinos - make him the initial November underdog. As a result, we are shifting 13 ratings on our Electoral Vote scorecard, almost all of them favoring Democrats."

Says the Cook Political Report.

98 comments:

David said...

It's hilarious watching the Republican Party nominate the one person most likely to lose to Hillary Clinton. Is there a more stupid group of people than Republican primary voters?

Sebastian said...

Wait, that can't be true. Rush had a hunch Trump would win in a landslide, and we've been assured more people voted in GOP primaries, and only #NeverTrumpers could sink his candidacy, and at least half a dozen commentators on this blog will vote for him no matter what, and Trump will make American great again, and, and . . . Anyway, looks like the high road and the low road both lead to historic defeat.

Tommy Duncan said...

People quickly forget Trump is a salesman and a negotiator. They pretend nothing will change in the next few months. They also pretend Hillary is a skilled politician with sublime instincts and no baggage.

Hillary is in for the ride of her life, Huma not withstanding.

zipity said...

Ha! While I'm certainly no Trump supporter, I love watching these idiots who have been saying for months that there is no way Trump will be the Republican nominee now switch to "He can't beat Hillary..."

Totally clueless to how fatally flawed Hillary is, and blind to their previous understanding of the forces propelling Trump forward.

Delicious.

traditionalguy said...

It's that old Trump Ceiling back again. The damn thing is closing in as it slowly lowers itself to crush The Crafty Viking. This is also known as wishful thinking propaganda.

Bob Boyd said...

Anybody else have trouble with the link?

traditionalguy said...

It must have come through Hillary's private server and got hacked to pieces.

n.n said...

Not blacks? Is this an admission of guilt?

What about Asians, Indians, and other hyphenated Americans?

What about white people? Do they not bleed?

First, they disarmed the babies...

Keep watching the video.

Levi Starks said...

Hmmm. Hillary 2016 gets a tag, but Donald Trump doesn't?
I'm already seeing a subliminal narrative, Hillary is the presumed landslide victor because there isn't a single woman, hispanic, or black that will vote for him, yet all of these confident prognosticators seem compelled to join the big team of people who feel like Hillary needs their advise to make sure she doesn't blow it.
If it's Trump who's the clear underdog, wouldn't fair play demand that some of the talking heads do a little work to boost his brand?
In words people are saying this is an easy win for Hillary, but in actions they are saying Trump is the favorite.

Chuck said...

"...millennials, independents and Latinos..." don't vote.

The Trump campaign really ought to worry more about the 50% or so of Republicans, who actually bothered to turn out in primaries, and who voted for a candidate other than Trump, and who told the exit pollsters that they would not vote for Trump under any circumstances.

buwaya said...

Hmm -
Substance -

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-rid-regulations-help-u-businesses-cnbc-115204356.html

Still looking for the full CNBC interview transcript, but whats mentioned in the yahoo piece is more substantial with respect to the economy and economic policy than what I've heard from candidates this last year. He discusses the dollar, interest rates, regulation/deregulation and refinancing debt.

buwaya said...

"50% or so of Republicans" told pollsters that " they would not vote for Trump under any circumstances." ?

Seems I missed that.

MadisonMan said...

Anybody else have trouble with the link?

(Raises hand)

I wonder how Cook has done with Trump's Candidacy so far. Past Performance is no guarantee of future results, of course, but if Cook has been horrible Re: Trump for the last year, is there a reason to believe them now?

Nonapod said...

It's a weird election. Under normal circumstances I would agree with the assessment that Trump hasn't a prayer. But all that assumes that these groups who greatly dislike Trump will therefore show up in droves to vote for Hillary. To me it seems more likely that many of them will choose either not to vote at all or cast a token vote for some other off brand candidate. Even so, I still think Hillary has a better than even chance of ultimately winning, unless she's indited of course.

steve last said...

anybody know how rare it is for a party to hold the white house for three terms?
like once every 70 years

Limited blogger said...

If this is what you need to get thru your day, go for it. Hillary just lost West Virginia. She's put Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan in play with her position on coal. Once she poll tests her other positions we'll go from there.

Qwinn said...

Why would indictment hurt Hillary? My observation of Democrat voting patterns over the last 40 years indicate that they view criminal indictment as a feature, not a bug (see Barry, Marian and many others). If Trump is indicted for Trump University it will hurt him far worse than Hillary will be if she is indicted.

Also, I am Latino (Cuban). This is the first time in my 46 years that papers purporting to speak for how Latinos think have been correct in my case, though obviously not for the reasons they insinuate.

Ann Althouse said...

Link fixed. Sorry. Thanks for the heads-up.

Qwinn said...

What Obama said about coal is worse than what Hillary has said. Did it hurt Obama in any coal states in 2008 or 2012?

Ann Althouse said...

"Hmmm. Hillary 2016 gets a tag, but Donald Trump doesn't?"

I don't like tag proliferation, but I had a Hillary Secretary of State, so I had to move beyond that.

As for Trump, originally I just used my tag for The Apprentice. Took me a while to give him and individual tag. I also have a tag for his family and for his rhetoric. But I don't need a separate one for his being in the presidential race. None of the other candidates had separate tags for that.

Ann Althouse said...

Other Trump tags are:

the Sanders + Trump phenomenon

the stop-Trump effort

Trump is like Nixon

steve last said...

anybody ever google Hillary and Watergate reprimand ?

Chuck said...

You "missed it," buwaya, because you are such a shitty reader, and such a moron.

What I was talking about, was the group of Republican primary voters who voted for a candidate other than Trump. Something like 70% to 40% of the Republican primary turnout. Depending on the state. In other words, among actual Republican voters, something like 35% to 20% were reporting that no way would they ever vote for Trump.

If those numbers are close to being true, it is an electoral catastrophe for Trump.

Here is a TownHall story on the phenomenon, from January. The same general results were obtained in all of the primaries, including Indiana this week:

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/29/poll-only-half-of-nontrump-republican-voters-would-support-him-in-general-election-n2110994


Fred Rawlings said...

Qwinn,
In Kentucky in 2012, Obama received 58 percent of the votes cast in the Democratic primary, 42 percent went to “Uncommitted,” a nameless, faceless, shapeless opponent who never spent a dime or ran an ad in the contest.

Alexander said...

I really enjoyed crowing about the idiots who kept going on about Trump's ceiling that he would never, ever break... who had to change their own numbers every other week.

Looking forward to doing it again.

Really, the GOPe really wants to go out with a fighting withdrawal where it claims to know how to promote electable! candidates? Because I'm looking at the triple crown of Dole, McCain, and Romney with an honorable mention for Bush I and thinking that might not be the best rhetorical weapon in their arsenal.

Or... given the caliber of strategic brilliance we've seen from them, it just might. Sad!

GOPe and #NeverTrump need Trump to lose, with a passion they never, ever put forth towards beating Obama. If Trump wins, they are absolutely finished - not just the individuals on the gravy train, but a movement. We couldn't fight immigration because we needed naturally conservative Hispanic votes! Too divisive! Too mean! Not respectable!

If Trump wins, then it turns out not only did they forsake ideological purity for the practical benefits of actually being in power... but they don't even have the saving grace of being successfully practical.

On the other hand, MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION is dead. Swallowing the shit sandwich is dead. No matter what happens this year, the GOPe types of destroyed their age-old tactic of 'he's not from your wing of the party but we gotta pull together to beat the Clintons!'

If nothing else, my hat's off to Trump for wiping out that particular con game.

Gonna be a fun few months. Choo-choo!

dreams said...

"In Kentucky in 2012, Obama received 58 percent of the votes cast in the Democratic primary, 42 percent went to “Uncommitted,” a nameless, faceless, shapeless opponent who never spent a dime or ran an ad in the contest."

And Uncommitted would have been a lot better president than Obama.

Darrell said...

Rubio and Cruz lost big to Trump. I'm sure they would beat Hillary.
Right.

Hagar said...

I suspect that in "Political Science" (now there's a real oxymoron for you!) class you are taught a lot of things a politician "must do" in order to win an election.
So far, Trump has not done any of those things, but seems to be doing rather well, regardless.

Barry Dauphin said...

I wonder when Trump plays the health card and forces Clinton to talk about her health and prove that she's healthy.

Brando said...

I'd say Trump has no chance at all for several reasons--demographics, the electoral wall, the economy, a non-existent ground game and fundraising needs dependent on a large group of people lukewarm or even hateful towards him, and of course his own toxicity that will drive up Hillary's numbers in a way she cannot on her own. All the "hey, some other people were wrong when they said he couldn't win the primary" claims don't really apply--the mistake they made was to ignore the polls, and the polls now are the ones giving Hillary an edge.

That said, there are some reasons he has a chance to beat her--starting with the fact that Hillary herself is pretty toxic and will galvanize a lot of people who hate Trump to vote for him anyway. Add to that her being terrible at politics, and then the "two term itch". And there's also a chance of events (major scandal, economic disaster, major terror attack) pushing those numbers, and this election is no sure thing.

Alexander said...

It is obvious that people who preferred candidate X will still vote for Trump.

Trump jumped from winning early primaries with around 30% to winning primaries with absolute majorities. So unless one reads this as people in CT and RI are YUUUUUUUUUGE fans of a wall on the Mexican border compared to say, people in Georgia, this would indicate that as they're preferred candidate dropped out or they did not want a brokered convention, they shifted to Trump.

Now I am sure some #NeverTrumpers will stay such, but give it a few weeks, let Bernie and Hillary slug it out for a few more weeks while Trump redirects all his fire onto her... and a lot of people will decide he ain't so bad.

Even better, shine the spotlight on the Libertarians. Watch Gary Johnson talk about cakes or let the libertarians in general have a shaking fit about how national borders are immoral. Nothing will stop conservative rank-and-filers defecting to the libertarians like actually listening to a libertarian. When Trump does his rhetoric about how Bernie has been given a shit stick and ought to run 3rd party, he ought to include the libertarians and how they deserve to be part of the national discussion and given a spot in the light.

Gusty Winds said...

Charlie Cook on Twitter 12/1/15

"If Trump or Carson win GOP nomination, I will eat crow. Not worried about it:"

Diamondhead said...

"So far, Trump has not done any of those things, but seems to be doing rather well, regardless."

Trump's performance in the primaries means nothing now. It's a new ballgame, and the approach/persona that locked down the nomination has put him in a poor starting position in the general election.

LYNNDH said...

I see where their is a push for Kasic to be VP. WHY?????? All the polls show he would beat Hillary, when he couldn't beat anyone else (except for Ohio). For 9 months it has been Trump will fall. Did he? The polls say he will lose big. Maybe, but so far this year they have been WRONG. For those that are anyone but Trump Republicans you really want Hillary so you can crow that you were right. Just maybe if you voted for Trump it would be different. No fan of Trump, but I think he can beat her.

steve last said...

Giving 2/1 odds to family and friends - Trump handily defeats the only politician
able to make Nixon in comparison seem as an altar boy.

Diamondhead said...

"The polls say he will lose big. Maybe, but so far this year they have been WRONG."

What are you talking about? The polls showed Trump essentially leading from start to finish, and he essentially led in the delegate count from start to finish.

eric said...

Yesterday I read on 538 that they got everything wrong about Trump. They gave some pretty solid sounding excuses. In the end, what it amounted to is, they were wrong about Trump.

Then, they told us Trump would lose in the general, and this time, they aren't wrong.

I think pollsters could be wrong 99 times out of a hundred and we would still pretend like they were giving us information.

Kyzernick said...

Pretty sure Trump is gonna demolish Hillary in the general. I truly hope Simon and Chuck have their anti-seizure meds on hand when they call the election for Trump.

Diamondhead said...

"I think pollsters could be wrong 99 times out of a hundred and we would still pretend like they were giving us information."

Once again, were the pollsters wrong about Trump? No.

Kyzernick said...

Chuck @ 1:18

Suck a dick you piece of shit. You anti-Trumpites are seriously deranged. You call yourself a fucking adult, you brown stained piece of garbage?

David Begley said...

One of the authors is Amy Walter. Committed lib. All authors are Beltway insiders. Not credible.

Brando said...

"Once again, were the pollsters wrong about Trump? No."

Yeah, I'm not sure why Trump fans are going on about polls being wrong. The polls showed Trump leading the GOP pack practically since he jumped in. Hell, he himself constantly went on about his great poll numbers. So why turn around and say "well, now the polls are all off?"

I mean, maybe they are, and you can find something wrong in their methodology. But to say "the polls saying Hillary leads him are wrong because the polls that showed Trump winning the nomination were right" seems self-refuting.

MadisonMan said...

Cook is essentially saying that Hillary will have some kind of Coat-tail effect.

I wonder how often she will actually campaign for Senatorial Candidates? Will she be asked to come in and give stump speeches? I can't believe (1) that any candidate would want her or (2) that her health would allow it.

Brando said...

"Cook is essentially saying that Hillary will have some kind of Coat-tail effect."

I think it's less coat tail and more reverse coat tail.

Diamondhead said...

Exactly, Brando. The people who felt there was no way Trump could win the nomination ended up being disastrously wrong. And now I'm hearing from Trump folks 1) crowing about how the pundits were wrong about their feelings and 2) how certain they feel in their gut that Trump will end up destroying Hillary. Sure, the polls can/might/will change, but right now Trump is clearly starting out way behind.

hombre said...

Trumpkins think a majority of the electorate think as they think despite the fact that a bare majority voted for The Donald in Republican primaries.

Since Trump may well be a shill for Hillary, it is not even a certainty that Trump thinks as they do.

Delusional Trumpkins.

buwaya said...

"You "missed it," buwaya, because you are such a shitty reader, and such a moron."

I plead guilty of course, and throw myself on the mercy of the court. I am merely one, and fallible.

Still, the question stands.

Your post implies (one does tend to write in such a way as to imply meanings, unless one is scrupulous) that those 50% are those who would never vote Trump.
A scrupulously written post would give a number for NeverTrump, or would disassociate such a number, if unknown, from those who simply voted for someone else.
After all, in context and with perspective, which are core conservative values, most winning contestants in past seriously contested primaries had some less-than-absolute level of support.

bagoh20 said...

Seems a lot of people are pretty damned sure about something that is about as unpredictable as a political situation has ever been. Who here is putting money down on the amazing predictive power of their intelligence? The taxpayers will lose this bet either way. Tied for that incredible stupidity there is the embarrassment factor of being the people who chose one of these assholes to be leader of the free world. If the rest of the world has ever felt disgusted with the U.S. having it's overwhelming influence, they ain't begun to feel it yet.

hombre said...

Kyzernick: "Chuck @ 1:18. Suck a dick you piece of shit. You anti-Trumpites are seriously deranged. You call yourself a fucking adult, you brown stained piece of garbage?"

Trump's candidacy has certainly elevated the level of political dialogue here and elsewhere.

Lyssa said...

In late 2012, there were a lot of very vocal Republicans who were convinced that the polls were completely wrong and that Romney was way ahead, right until the bitter end. But Obama won just like they polls predicted, and it really wasn't even close. Frankly, it was embarrassing.

I really hope that we're not about to repeat that.

Kyzernick said...

At this point in 1980, there were plenty of polls that had Carter beating Reagan by 20 points or more. I know this isn't 1980, but it's still relevant because:

A) Carter had the power of the incumbency, and still couldn't win it in the end
B) Reagan had charisma, something that Trump also has, whereas Carter was a dead fish, like Clinton
C) Concurrent polls showed a majority of Americans believing the country was on the wrong track, just like today, which didn't jive with those Carter-friendly poll numbers
D) Reagan did not get as much free publicity as Trump

Clinton goes down in the polls when the public sees too much of her. Trump doesn't seem to have that problem. It's the lace panty crowd that's worried right now - that's all. Chuck and Simon can spew their juvenile insults all day long, but they're not changing anyone's opinions because they're both totally unhinged, and it's painfully obvious to see. The last #NeverTrumpers standing will be the totally unhinged ones, and some of them will still pull the lever for Trump because they're spineless cowards, just like the nominee they were hoping for. Well, instead they got Trump, and while he wasn't my first choice (Walker was), I'll have no problem voting for him. They'll realize just how insignificant their opinions are when Trump crushes Hillary, and hopefully the shock of it will fry a few brains.

Please, someone tell me who would be safer from attack ads than Trump? Anyone? Bueller? Jesus, the GOP spent more time assailing him than they ever spent doing the same to Obama, and he STILL trounced everyone. Every last one. All of those Golden Elephants got crushed like bugs on the windshield of Trump's campaign bus. Now he faces a politician so distasteful that a sizeable percentage of Bernie voters ain't gonna pull the lever for her. They're saying as much on comment threads all over Facebook and Politico and Salon. Some are even rooting for Trump at this point - the jarring feeling of seeing someone with a Bernie profile pic praising Trump over Hillary is hard to get used to, but I see it more and more.

Chucky Cheese and Simone are just whiners. Go cry in your cornflakes. Your candidate lost - quit your insulting tirades because the more you rant and rave, the more other people look down on you as sore losers and mentally deranged.

Kyzernick said...

@ hombre

I like Buwaya. I think he's one of the most reasonable people on this comment thread, and has insights I find extremely fascinating. I'm sure he doesn't need my support, but seeing Chuck lash out at him like a child pissed me off. Like Trump, I'm not afraid to take the low road, though it's not my preferred route.

Hagar said...

It has not been so much the polls as the pundits refusing to believe the polls.

Diamondhead said...

"they're spineless cowards, just like the nominee they were hoping for."

Which hoped-for nominee was a spineless coward?

LYNNDH said...

I stand corrected. I was conflating polls with pundits (hattip to Hagar). Still, with the current polls methodology would be important as to the accuracy of the polls.

"Dewey Wins"

Brando said...

"In late 2012, there were a lot of very vocal Republicans who were convinced that the polls were completely wrong and that Romney was way ahead, right until the bitter end. But Obama won just like they polls predicted, and it really wasn't even close. Frankly, it was embarrassing."

Exactly--the argument on the right was that their polls (I think Gallup and Rasmussen) were more accurate because they had a more even sample of Republicans to Dems to Indies, based on previous elections. The problem was that the "party identity" in polls is based on what the respondents refer to themselves as, and if more unaffiliated people are pro-Obama they will identify more as Dems even if they're not registered as such. Ultimately it turned out the majority of polls were correct in giving Obama about a five point lead.

If the polls are wrong about Trump now, explain what they're getting wrong and why other polls (like Rasmussen, which I think has Trump even slightly ahead) are more correct. But simply saying "everyone underestimated Trump before!" doesn't address that. The pundits who underestimated Trump were doing so despite and not because of the polls.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

HEY! Be nice, everyone.

I'm not sure why Trump's coronation as the Repub. nominee would make GA less solidly red.

Richard said...

"Cook is essentially saying that Hillary will have some kind of Coat-tail effect."

Or it could be a Coal-tale effect.

shiloh said...

"Trump is like Nixon"

Apologies to Nixon.

Nichevo said...

Hi, honey, you're back!

Rick said...

Chuck said...
You "missed it," buwaya, because you are such a shitty reader, and such a moron.


Apparently the silver lining in Trump's candidacy will be watching the @-holes out themselves.

hombre said...

The great irony appears to be that this election will be decided by voters who think either of these turds will be a lousy POTUS.

Both have the disadvantage of high negatives. Hillary has some advantages, however:

Democrats are loyal. Republicans are not. Both must run with party designations, but the Republican brand has been decimated, particularly among the young, by the news media and partisan schoolteachers.

The loyalty of Democrats transcends decency and approaches idolatry. They simply do not care if Hillary is a liar, a grifter or a criminal. They know she will keep the spigot open - whatever spigot turns them on. Trumpkins may share that characteristic. Trump says they do. Most Republicans do not. If the flak gets heavy and rings true, even their distaste for Hillary may not bring them out for Trump.

Not every Republican who opposed Trump is GOPe. Many of them are sick of having to hold their noses to vote for a Republican nominee, even one supported by Republican dissidents. As a Republican-leaning Independent, I certainly feel that way.

To many of us, Hillary vs. Trump is an embarrassment. If we stay home, Trump loses. Hillary does not face the same problem. As Obama's reelection demonstrates, Democrats have no shame or no discernment. They will turn out for her, even the Bernies.

Brando said...

Hombre at 3:44--I agree completely. Just as anti-Trump conservatives should have considered what animates many of Trump's followers (besides simply "they're all retards"), Trump and his fans would be unwise to write off his critics as "establishment brown nosers who just want their place at cocktail parties". It's easy to do that, of course--when the opposition is so easily denigrated you don't have to really consider where they're coming from--but it creates a large blind spot. Trump himself just spoke up about how he needed unity--that leaves a lot of burned ground to make up.

The Dems of course are good soldiers. Their fear of the right outweighs all else.

Simon said...

No, no, you guys! Stop talking about data and objective metrics; Kyzernick has talked to three friends on Facebook so far this afternoon and according to their response, it's in the bag for Trump! You're going to be surprised by how yuge Trump's margins are. Stuff like this reality thing are just a distraction. (Here.) The people who do this for a living—what would they know?

#NeverTrump

Kyzernick said...

I'll be honest, if it was Trump v. Webb, I'd probably vote for Jim Webb. But it's not. It won't be, and it can't be. It's Trump versus Clinton, and I'm going to be all-in for Trump. That's the end of the story.

Bush, Kasich, Rubio - they were the spineless cowards. The rest were all fluffy has-beens or lacked charisma. Rick Perry stood no chance at all. Pataki was fooling himself. Fiorina was an even longer shot than Pataki. The only ones who I felt had courage were Walker (for his actions in Wisonsin, not backing down and taking the heat), Carson (because he was a soft-spoken gentlemen throwing himself into a pit of vipers and ready to suffer the slings and arrows of being called an Uncle Tom every day if he won the nomination), and Cruz (because as ineffective as it was at the time, I think his lone wolf stand on conservatism was courageous and admirable). But as much as I like Cruz' policy positions, he is too religious for my taste and also too ugly and Beta to win the election. Real simple.

Kyzernick said...

That's right Simon, I talked to 3 friends on Facebook, Bernie supporters all, and 2 of them expressed willingness to vote for Trump over Hillary. Meanwhile, you're looking at data and metrics while we're still 6 months away from the election, Trump has JUST won the nomination, and Clinton is still fighting it out with Sanders, who is promising to raise hell at the convention. Neither party has convened yet, voters are still absorbing the current situation, and the actual contest has not yet begun. So you keep harping on those poll numbers, you lunatic crybaby, and you keep rooting against Trump. I'll keep on looking at the reality, which is that six months ago nobody thought Trump would be the nominee. Remember those days, do ya? Remember how preposterous his candidacy seemed? Remember how he was never gonna win a single state, and how the public would take him for a joke, and how a "serious" candidate would emerge and claim victory? I remember all that. And that's why Bush is the nominee today!

Oh wait. He's not. He dropped out months ago. MONTHS AGO. Who's the nominee, Simon? Who is the Republican Nominee for President of the United States?

Now we're six months from the general, and all you can say is the polls don't look good. I grant you that - most of them don't. the hilarious part is that you're too shortsighted to realize those polls are gonna change, and change big, now that Trump has no other GOP opponents. Now his opponent is Hillary, who has more skeletons in her closet, more flaws as a human and as a candidate, than anyone Trump has beaten so far. And yet you still think he's somehow going to fail to capitalize on that. I'm sorry your guy lost. Hopefully, once you run out of tissues, you'll come to your senses. But I won't be holding my breath.

As you so eloquently stated multiple times over the last few days, "Go fuck yourself."

Kyzernick said...

If Trump can peel off 20% of Bernie's supporters, he wins - with or without crybabies like Simone.

#NeverCrybaby

Simon said...

Chuck said...
“If those numbers are close to being true, it is an electoral catastrophe for Trump.”

They could be off by half and that would still be enough to be a catastrophe for Trump. But his fanboys are blind to it.

Alexander said...
“It is obvious that people who preferred candidate X will still vote for Trump.”

No, we won’t, and if you think we will, you’re in for a nasty shock when you see the results.

MadisonMan said...
"Cook is essentially saying that Hillary will have some kind of Coat-tail effect."

No, he’s pointing out the obvious math: Every downballot GOP candidate now has to condemn Trump or embrace Trump, and doing either of those things will lose them a third to a half of the GOP votes that they need for reelection, which is in most races fatal. I won’t be voting for any Republican candidate ever again if they didn’t vocally oppose Trump in this cycle; it’s the first and threshold question I have for anyone seeking my vote. You were with conservatives when it mattered, when we stopped Trump, or you were against us. Simple as that.

Lyssa said...
“In late 2012, there were a lot of very vocal Republicans who were convinced that the polls were completely wrong and that Romney was way ahead, right until the bitter end. But Obama won just like they polls predicted, and it really wasn't even close. Frankly, it was embarrassing. I really hope that we're not about to repeat that.”

That’s exactly it. That’s exactly what they’re doing: I remember that vividly, and I’m astonished that everyone doesn’t. The GOP media and the Romney campaign constructed this alternate reality in which the candidate was doing really well, and it was all the OTHER polls and metrics that were wrong because—well, si oportet, ergo est.

hombre said...
“Not every Republican who opposed Trump is GOPe. Many of them are sick of having to hold their noses to vote for a Republican nominee, even one supported by Republican dissidents. As a Republican-leaning Independent, I certainly feel that way.”

And Brando said...
“Trump and his fans would be unwise to write off his critics as ‘establishment brown nosers who just want their place at cocktail parties.’”

Right; the notion of “the establishment” has been tenuous for some time, but if I count as part of it, the term is empty, meaningless rhetoric answering roughly to “people with whom I disagree.” I live ~700 miles from the beltway and I’ve never been to a cocktail party in my life.

Simon said...

Kyzernick said...
"As you so eloquently stated multiple times over the last few days, 'Go fuck yourself.'"

If it's all the same to you, I'll just sit back and watch this year fuck you; I don't have to prove a frakkin' thing to you—your delusion comes to a sudden end at around 8PM Eastern on November 8, whether or not it makes any sense to you. Your candidate is going to take the worst drubbing since Mondale and there's not a thing you can do about it. The die's cast. What's sad is that you had to destroy my erstwhile party to have your fun, which is just vile and contemptible; if Jorge Bergoglio wanted to start a crypto-protestant cult he could have done it without corrupting my Church to do it, and if you wanted a common populist shitshow you could have started it all on your own. But either way, don't expect conservatives or libertarians to help. You're on your own.

Diamondhead said...

"But as much as I like Cruz' policy positions, he is too religious for my taste and also too ugly and Beta to win the election."

Too religious, too ugly, too beta. I like your pitch to Republicans/conservatives not sold on Trump.

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kyzernick said...

Diamondhead, I'm not pitching Trump. I'm stating facts. Is Cruz a photogenic man? Be honest? Did he ally himself with Glenn Beck, who spent days fasting and calling down "God's wrath" on Trump while praying for "divine intervention" (as did Rafael Cruz, for that matter)? Be honest. Does he strike you as a manly man, one who would never slink away in defeat after a concession speech? Be honest.

Yes, he is ugly. I don't like that this matters, but it does. Yes, he is very religious. I don't mind that in a friend or a person, but I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with a very religious president either. I voted for Romney anyway, and would vote for Cruz IF he was the nominee (spoiler alert - he ain't!). And yeah, he slunk away after he suspended his campaign. He also looked painfully uncomfortable and jumpy during his interview with his family, rather than confident and composed. Do you deny any of that?

Be honest.

Don't assume I give a shit how you plan to vote. Quite frankly, I hope Simone starts campaigning for Hillary in his town. I'm ashamed to have cast votes in the past that match the votes cast by someone so unhinged as he. Re-read his ranting the night Trump won Indiana - he was like a spoiled teenager after too much vodka lamenting about his girlfriend leaving him for a man with an actual penis. Very beta, verrrrry verrry beta.

Kyzernick said...

Crybaby, I'm always on my own. That's how I like it. This year ain't gonna fuck me. It's ALREADY fucked you though, so you prolly shouldn't be talking smack. It's only gonna look bad for you when I copy and paste your rants from today on Nov. 9th, after President-Elect Trump has given his victory speech.

hombre said...

Just to clarify: I am not a "never Trump" voter, but he doesn't have my vote yet. Hillary will never have it.

I consider myself a Christian constitutional conservative. Trump appears to be a pragmatist, but not necessarily a principled pragmatist. The principles I refer to, of course, are my own, but I believe they are shared by many, particularly Tea Partiers. Frankly, "the art of the deal" sounds McConnell/Ryan to me and turns me off.

Time will tell.

Simon said...

Diamondhead said...
"'But as much as I like Cruz' policy positions, he is too religious for my taste and also too ugly and Beta to win the election.' Too religious, too ugly, too beta. I like your pitch to Republicans/conservatives not sold on Trump."

Yeah, no kidding—when people use terms like "beta" or "cuck," they might as well hold up a giant neon sign that says "I'm an asshole, please avoid me."

Kyzernick said...

Crybaby, you already did that yourself with your embarrassing rants the night Cruz quit it. Except your writings didn't say "I'm an asshole" - they said "Somebody please hold me. And bring me tissues."

Verrrry beta.

Kyzernick said...

Crybaby, I forgot you're a YouTube star. Your best moments come at around the 2 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqSTXuJeTks

Diamondhead said...

"Don't assume I give a shit how you plan to vote."

I don't give a shit if you give a shit or not. Trump is an ugly motherfucker too. Hillary - also very ugly. We're going to have an ugly President.

"I'm ashamed to have cast votes in the past that match the votes cast by someone so unhinged as he."

In a country of 300+ million, in Presidential elections involving two contestants, you're ashamed to have cast votes that match someone you see as unhinged? I assume that's just rhetorical flair, since your vote this year will match that of David Duke.

Kyzernick said...

@ hombre 4:39

If his opponent were Jim Webb, I'd be right there with you - undecided and not ready to cast my lot with anyone yet. But it's not, and it won't be Biden either. It'll either be a corrupt party insider who wrecked much of the Middle East or a Commie fossil with zero practical ideas. That's why I have no qualms about selecting Trump over either of them.

Kyzernick said...

Rhetorical flair is Crybaby's specialty, not mine. I'm embarrassed to have folks like David Duke voting for any candidate I might have voted for too, but he doesn't post here or anywhere else I like to visit so it's easier to ignore.

Trump is ugly with age, no doubt about it, but when he was Cruz' age he was good looking. His sons are good looking (not model quality, but not Steve Buscemi), and the women in his family are gorgeous. If I was making an ad for a vacation spot or a high end sports car, I would pick a couple that looked like Donald and Melania over Cruz and Heidi.

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brando said...

"Right; the notion of “the establishment” has been tenuous for some time, but if I count as part of it, the term is empty, meaningless rhetoric answering roughly to “people with whom I disagree.” I live ~700 miles from the beltway and I’ve never been to a cocktail party in my life."

"Establishment" should have some meaning--elected officials, pundits with sway, big donors, think tankers--but of course within that group you run the gamut. Jeff Sessions, Sean Hannity and Donald Trump are just as "establishment" as John McCain, George Will and Charles Koch. (After all, if Mitt Romney had to seek out your endorsement in 2012, sorry, you're "establishment").

Now, the Trump-ites can say "well we mean a certain type of the establishment that we don't like". But if you dislike the "establishment" you'll have to be more precise. Even complaining about "moderates" doesn't make much sense when you consider that compared to Cruz, Trump is moderate on most issues (and not really more conservative on any I can think of. Cruz leaves no room on his right).

And don't get me started on the term "RINO"! Okay, I'm started..

Kyzernick said...

Can't speak for anyone else, but to me "Establishment" means the party insiders who were willing to turn their back on their own voters to sneak another amnesty through, and anyone who took advice from Karl Rove. Yes, G-Dubs Bush was "Establishment", but I still voted for him over Kerry - just like if Baby Brother Jeb was facing off against Clinton right now (ha!), I'd vote for him over Clinton.

But maybe not over Webb.

Kyzernick said...

Not surprisingly, the #NeverClinton people are already more organized than the #NeverTrump people. Probably because they have an adequate supply of tissues.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/481389/

Michael K said...

" Is there a more stupid group of people than Republican primary voters?"

Asks the fool who plans to vote for the felon and traitor.

Phil 3:14 said...

I am a "never Trump" but I would not prognosticate this election. But I'll bet that if Trump wins many Republicans will be unhappy. If Trump loses many Trump supporters will be exceedingly pissed at the neverTrump folks.

Regardless of outcome, other than the Schadenfreude, they'll be a lot of unhappy never Trump folks in November.

Michael said...

London bookie William Hill had Trump at 200 to 1 at the start of his campaign. He is now at 2 to 1.

Our genius prognosticators on this site, the never Trump guys and the Cruz fanatics, are obviously all talk and no action kinds. They could have lost a lot of money on their certainly.

Still time. Two sides to every bet. No government bailout for the losers. No whining allowed.

Step up lads, step the fuck up.

narciso said...

someone is selling a narrative,


http://www.weeklystandard.com/do-republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem/article/2002259

Rhythm and Balls said...

..if Jorge Bergoglio wanted to start a crypto-protestant cult he could have done it without corrupting my Church to do it...

Lol. So "Protestant" is not capitlized but "Church" is capitalized?

Got it.

Methinks someone's losing sight of the meaning of life in America.

Michael K said...

"someone is selling a narrative,"

I think TWS is a NeverTrump bastion and might be very unhappy if he wins. They and National Review have destroyed their brands.


I have not been a supporter but have been interested in what was happening. I was very unhappy with the GOP Congress wing for a while. I was a little surprised but not that much.

David said...

Way too early. Unusual circumstances too.

narciso said...

true, but the piece counters the narrative put forward by all the 'usual suspects;

Achilles said...

Diamondhead said...
""they're spineless cowards, just like the nominee they were hoping for."

Which hoped-for nominee was a spineless coward?"

Mitt Romney.

Paul Ryan.

John Kasich.

Marco Rubio.

Rubio might be less of a coward and more of a corporate whore though.

hombre said...

@Kyzernick: There's fair chance that I would have gone for Webb too. Against these two, better than fair.

Mary Beth said...

Cruz had an anti-Hillary ad prepared. He didn't get to use it but it still deserves more views.

Fans of Office Space will appreciate it.

Fabi said...

Kyzernick captured a lot of flags on this thread -- very well done!

Mick said...

All nonsense of course.
Trump will wipe the floor with the criminal coughing old lady. She is detestable to "wide swaths" of the population, who recognize that the media is totally in the tank, that the polls are bullshit, that the people who oppose Trump are the very reason that many support him, that HRC is a career politician who never had a job in her life, and lives in lala land.

That HRC is even considered a viable candidate is how far we have fallen as a nation.

Mick said...

The fix may still be in. If Trump names Lyin Ted or little Marco as VP then the Globalists fingerprints will be revealed, and Trump will lose many supporters for naming an ineligible VP.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". 12th Amendment.