Althouse: A new Marquette poll has Cruz way up in Wisconsin at 40%, with Trump at 30% and Kasich at 21%.

March 30, 2016

A new Marquette poll has Cruz way up in Wisconsin at 40%, with Trump at 30% and Kasich at 21%.

The poll was completed before Scott Walker's endorsement of Cruz. (The previous Marquette poll, done last month, had Trump at 30% and Cruz at 19.)

The new poll also showed Walker's job approval up, so if the GOP primary is (as some have said) sort of a referendum on Walker, Cruz ought to do even better.

Also in that poll, Feingold's lead over Ron Johnson is down to 3 points, and — in the state supreme court race — Rebecca Bradley is up 5 points over JoAnne Kloppenburg (despite an effort to portray Bradley, based on her college essays, as a homophobe).

91 comments:

rehajm said...: On the Democratic side, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leads frontrunner Hillary Clinton, 49-45.

Isn't this the news from the poll?; 3/30/16, 1:32 PM
Expat(ish) said...: @rehajm - is it a surprise when a socialist wins in WI?

-XC; 3/30/16, 1:36 PM
David said...: There is a Waterloo, Wisconsin.; 3/30/16, 1:40 PM
rehajm said...: Expat(ish) said...
@rehajm - is it a surprise when a socialist wins in WI?

Point taken, yes, though I'm wondering when the Democratic party unity kicks in and they all begin to coalesce around the 'inevitable' nominee. After all, it's the GOP that's in chaos...; 3/30/16, 1:42 PM
Meade said...: Republican poll outside the margin of error, Democrat inside.; 3/30/16, 1:45 PM
Meade said...: And by "Democrat" I mean "Socialist" (for those outside of Wisconsin).; 3/30/16, 1:46 PM
David said...: Lot's of PC Trump loathing in Wisco based on my visit last week. But they aren't going to go for Cruz in a general election.; 3/30/16, 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Those of you who live in WI, what is your sense on the ground? I'm skeptical of polls in general because it is too easy to frame questions to get the results the pollster wants. So do these polls results jibe with the feel one gets "on the streets" or not?; 3/30/16, 1:48 PM
Achilles said...: Every state at this point is lose or go home for Cruz. I like Cruz and would like him to be president at some point. But no now. We need to kill the MSM/political class hold on the overton window first. The establishment is pulling out all of the stops to force a brokered convention.

Trump is going to be the candidate on the right that gets the most votes in the general election. It is up to the vichy wing of the GOP to decide if they are going to keep helping Hillary or not. So far they are allied with the BLM movement and any women who will sue him. At this rate there will be no GOP soon.; 3/30/16, 1:49 PM
Rocketeer said...: And by "Democrat" I mean "Socialist" (for those outside of Wisconsin).

I'm from Massachusetts, so I translated your "socialist" as "Birchite" to maintain relevant scale.; 3/30/16, 1:50 PM
Meade said...: "Those of you who live in WI, what is your sense on the ground?"

Cruz.; 3/30/16, 1:52 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Those of you who live in WI, what is your sense on the ground?

Trump is toxic in the WOW counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington). The three most important Republican counties in Wisconsin. Cruz will get a relatively easy win.; 3/30/16, 1:53 PM
Michael K said...: I agree with Achilles but I'm old enough to be largely immune to what Hillary would do.

MY concern os with my grandchildren and especially my grandson.

Fortunately, his parents are conservative and he knows how to shoot an AR15 and a Walther PPK so he is probably OK.

He's only 10 so the Colt 1911 is still too big for his hands.; 3/30/16, 1:55 PM
Meade said...: @Rocketeer, right. By "outside Wisconsin" I should have added Minnesota, Cambridge, Chicago, Manhattan, Berkeley, Boulder, Austin, Seattle, Havana and Hanoi.; 3/30/16, 1:57 PM
Meade said...: And D.C.; 3/30/16, 1:59 PM
edutcher said...: So the events of yesterday would not have made a dent.; 3/30/16, 1:59 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Achilles said...
"lose or go home"

That's MY motto!; 3/30/16, 2:01 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: I just want to know which vote will more effectively oppose Trump.; 3/30/16, 2:02 PM
Meade said...: " At this rate there will be no GOP soon."

I must say I do appreciate that you Trumpians are threatening only to shoot us in the front and not our backs.

Inhumane need not be cowardly. So thanks for that.; 3/30/16, 2:05 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Marquette, huh? Is that the same school trying to force Prof. McAdams to apologize?

You made passing reference to that incident in a blog post from May 2015, Professor Althouse, but nothing I can find since then. Not an interesting-enough story (what with legal, academic, gender, homosexual rights, and political/ideological components)?; 3/30/16, 2:06 PM
Achilles said...: Meade said...
"Those of you who live in WI, what is your sense on the ground?"

Cruz."

Do you live in the WOW counties? What I have heard is it is the rest of Wisconsin supporting Trump.

There is a lot to like with Cruz. But first I don't think the people voting for him actually want him and second Cruz voters are intense and committed to beating Hillary. Trump's voters are not committed to beating Hillary, they are committed to breaking DC and the media.

I am not convinced Cruz will be able to win over Trump voters particularly if he stays with the establishment and continues to team up with BLM and the media.; 3/30/16, 2:08 PM
Meade said...: "Do you live in the WOW counties?"

I live in the Dane county. Where 30% of the electorate will vote Republican and <30% of that 30% will vote for Trump.; 3/30/16, 2:12 PM
TosaGuy said...: Stop the Klopp; 3/30/16, 2:14 PM
Achilles said...: Meade said...
"" At this rate there will be no GOP soon."

I must say I do appreciate that you Trumpians are threatening only to shoot us in the front and not our backs.

Inhumane need not be cowardly. So thanks for that."

In 2012 in the primary I supported pretty much everyone except the guy who passed Obamacare in his state. I supported him eventually but it was bitter. He lost just like I said he would. He purposely alienated both the Paul supporters by excluding him from the convention and in the general showed none of the vigor against Obama that he showed against Newt.

They are trying to do the same thing now. You people are stupid. They say we need to broaden the party and try to pass amnesty to get more hispanic votes. Now someone like Trump comes in and actually broadens the party appeal particularly to the poor working class. You people are trashing him like you have never trashed a democrat in the history of the party. You are teaming up with the SJW's and the BLM movement.

There will be no GOP soon if it keeps alienating the voters who would otherwise support it to appease people, SJW's and Hispanics, who will never support it if all it is is democrat lite.; 3/30/16, 2:19 PM
TosaGuy said...: "Those of you who live in WI, what is your sense on the ground?"

Cruz will cleanup in SE Wisconsin (WOW counties) and Trump will do better in northern and Fox Valley counties. The WOW counties turn out well every election and the state supreme court race will also draw them out even if disgusted by the presidential primary.

Bernie of BenandJerrystan will clean up in Madison -- he is trying to capture other college votes from around the state. Mrs. Clinton will do well in Milwaukee because that is location of most of the state's minority population. Tempering Clinton in Milwaukee County, however, is the Milwaukee County Executive race where the challenger makes Bernie seem like Reagan -- state senator Chris Larson.

Larson excites the county's white urban progs with the power of 10,000 orgasms because he spearheaded the state senate fleeing to Illinois during Act 10. He has cultivated an elected powerbase with of Milwaukee's black elected officials by helping them win their primaries. However, Larson and the most powerful black elected senator in the state -- Lena Taylor -- hate each other immensely and a recent fight has damaged Larson.; 3/30/16, 2:28 PM
eric said...: Achilles,

I don't know who you people are, maybe Chuck, but I think you're right.

For years I've been told not to take my ball and go home after the primaries. For years I've been told to suck it up and keep the Democrat out of office. I've been told this by the conservative talking heads. NRO, Michael Medved, Jenifer Rubin, etc.

And now that the tables are turned, they've decided to burn the whole thing down.

It's like a monarchy that has ruled for centuries and the peasants are revolting. Instead of forming up a Congress and allowing the peasants to have their say, they are setting the castle and the countryside ablaze.

Many on the right have absolutely lost their minds as they've seen their power vanish. Ben Shapiro, who I admire, has become a Social Justice Warrior for Michelle Fields because she was "assaulted". When someone is accused of being racist at a Trump rally, he piles on and accepts news reports without skepticism. And it's not just him. Many right leaning sites I've read over the years have gone all out to burn it down if we don't listen to them.

Which, I actually don't think is much of a change. Except, in the past, they maintained a pretense of cooperation with conservatives. When Todd Akin would get killed in the news, they'd like on and say, see, we told you so. And then, to drive it home, would bring him up again year after year to keep the peasant revolt down.

But no one noticed. Because it was just a Senate seat. Or a governor. Or Congress.

But now thyve been revealed.

My only hope is that, once this primary is over, it turns out they are a bunch of cowardly pols who can't actually bring themselves to light the match and find themselves instead, surrendering to the inevitability of Trump or Cruz.; 3/30/16, 2:31 PM
Michael K said...: " Ben Shapiro, who I admire, has become a Social Justice Warrior for Michelle Fields because she was "assaulted".

I confess I can't figure this out. Both quit Breitbart and seem to headed toward Fox, which in spite of a lot of bragging, I think is losing viewers, They never had me but my wife periodically comes out of the other room complaining about something.; 3/30/16, 2:38 PM
Hagar said...: There are articles about Democrats changing their registration to Republican. I have not seen any about R's going D, but I bet that before the next election there will be some movement of that kind too.
There will be realignments in both parties by 2018, and by 2020 they will both look different than they do now.; 3/30/16, 2:44 PM
Birkel said...: The Michelle Fields thing is a thing because Trump and his team decided to push the issue instead of politely addressing Fields. It's ok to mess up but calling the offended person a liar is a good way to get the offended person heated. The police are following the law. Most of us would have had the sense to apologize and make amends without a criminal charge filed.

As for Cruz, I believe a win in Wisconsin is highly likely and wish Kasich would allow the matchup that voters have indicated they prefer. A successful two term governor with the Meade endorsement should be able to see his way clear of further losses. But I cannot see that happening. He has little honor. He is a politician. But, I repeat myself.; 3/30/16, 2:47 PM
Achilles said...: eric said...
"Achilles,

I don't know who you people are, maybe Chuck, but I think you're right."

Let me clarify "you people." Powerlineblog, NRO, George Will, and all of the other lawyer/pundits who have never had a real job. Their only collective business experience is running a law firm and talking/writing about things. Not to make it personal but people like Meade who is married to a woman that has a tenured position making 6 figures and just trains more lawyers which society really doesn't need. I don't know what Meade has done in his life that's up to him to elaborate.

I don't want your help. I want you to leave me alone. It is easy to pay 40% of your income in taxes when you make $250k and don't have to deal with the 74932 government agencies full of turf protecting bureaucrats who all have a form for you to fill out and a fee for you to pay. The republican party hasn't cut a single department budget since Coolidge. They created the EPA. They created the last major entitlement passed. Lawyers don't mind all of the SJW nonsense because it keeps them employed.

I look forward to all of these people typing up a resume or starting their own business. I want them to live in the hell they have created for the people who actually fix their air conditioners or produce their food.

I want them to be rewarded accurately for their value to society.; 3/30/16, 2:48 PM
Meade said...: "Now someone like Trump comes in"

Come in from where? The Democrats?; 3/30/16, 2:51 PM
Mark said...: It is a testimony to how awful our political culture is that I can see why some may prefer Trump over the almost-certain Democratic nominee. She is evil, vile, and deeply corrupt, to be sure.

Trump is worse.

Accepting Trump is accepting that the Death Spiral is now irreversible. I won't do it. I'm voting Libertarian and investing in canned goods and a still.; 3/30/16, 2:52 PM
Chuck said...: Laurence are you seeing much of an anti-Trump media campaign (radio, TV)?

Is there any sort of pro-Trump campaign in any form (apart from The Donald's dubious news-making)?; 3/30/16, 2:53 PM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/16, 2:56 PM
Brando said...: "I don't want your help. I want you to leave me alone. It is easy to pay 40% of your income in taxes when you make $250k and don't have to deal with the 74932 government agencies full of turf protecting bureaucrats who all have a form for you to fill out and a fee for you to pay. The republican party hasn't cut a single department budget since Coolidge. They created the EPA. They created the last major entitlement passed. Lawyers don't mind all of the SJW nonsense because it keeps them employed."

Sounds like a reason to support a libertarian, not an abusive-big government strongman. Where is the libertarian argument for Trump? I don't think even he is making that argument. And no, this is not an endorsement of the business-as-usual GOP which hasn't been libertarian either. I just don't see how a guy who openly promises to wield government power is better.

"The Michelle Fields thing is a thing because Trump and his team decided to push the issue instead of politely addressing Fields. It's ok to mess up but calling the offended person a liar is a good way to get the offended person heated. The police are following the law. Most of us would have had the sense to apologize and make amends without a criminal charge filed."

Pretty much. There's a difference between gratuitously giving Michelle Fields her fifteen minutes of fame and brushing off such minor squabbles. We only know who this Fields woman is because the Trumpists decided to go into full attack mode on her. And now they're the victims?; 3/30/16, 2:57 PM
Henry said...: Now someone like Trump comes in...

It's a classic: Trump Walked In

Nothing seemed to matter any more,
Didn't care what I was headed for.
Time was standing still,
No one counted till
There came a knocking at the door.

Trump walked in and drove the shadows away ;
Trump walked right in and brought my sunniest day.
One magic moment, and my heart seemed to know
That Trump said "Hello !",
Though not a word was spoken.

One look and I forgot the gloom of the past ;
One look and I had found my future at last.
One look and I had found a world completely new,
When Trump walked in ... so fuck you.; 3/30/16, 2:57 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: The Trumpsters say they'll go to Washington and clean out the establishment, remove all of those traitors and sellouts now there.

But they also demand that the establishment support Trump and not oppose him. Damn you establishment! How dare you!

Hey dummies, if you say you're going to string people up don't expect them to give you the damned rope to do it. And then complain when they don't, too.

Geezus, you Trump fanatics are silly.; 3/30/16, 2:58 PM
Phunctor said...: "Trumpians are threatening only to shoot us in the front and not our backs."

That's because we're not moderates.; 3/30/16, 3:06 PM
holdfast said...: Breitbart Media is in the tank for Trump in a way that would make it's founder puke.

I think that Shapiro and Fields were looking for a graceful exit to avoid being unceremoniously purged for insufficient Trump worship.; 3/30/16, 3:07 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Who cares.

1. Trump will end up with more delegate/nominating votes anyway.

2. The race that matters at this point is Bernie versus the bulldog. (Even though either one should end up beating either Republicrony).

I realize it must very very enthralling living in Wisconsin, but don't let that distract your alleged politics-hatred from the actual questions and issues at stake.; 3/30/16, 3:09 PM
damikesc said...: I don't want your help. I want you to leave me alone. It is easy to pay 40% of your income in taxes when you make $250k and don't have to deal with the 74932 government agencies full of turf protecting bureaucrats who all have a form for you to fill out and a fee for you to pay. The republican party hasn't cut a single department budget since Coolidge. They created the EPA. They created the last major entitlement passed. Lawyers don't mind all of the SJW nonsense because it keeps them employed.

But WHO is going to cut it?

Trump? Nothing I've seen indicates it. His own personal list of major things the government should handle should give you pause as to what he wants to do. Cruz, on the other hand, I can see generating a real, legitimate effort to trim the Leviathan. Shut it down? In 4 years, it isn't happening. But slice down departments? Yeah, he'll do more of that than basically anybody.

I can appreciate that Trump has changed the debate. But I don't buy his stuff. I just do not. I truly fear that, if elected, his supporters are going to be BRUTALLY disappointed.; 3/30/16, 3:11 PM
damikesc said...: 2. The race that matters at this point is Bernie versus the bulldog. (Even though either one should end up beating either Republicrony).

Commenting on the Dems and calling Republicans "cronies". Such irony.

Breitbart Media is in the tank for Trump in a way that would make it's founder puke.

Some are terrible. I still adore Milo and he never says Trump has great policies. He is ALL about attacking the Regressive Left and finds Trump an amazing tool at that. I'll read their London stuff and Tech stuff...but the rest is rough reading. I wonder if John Nolte's knees have started hurting yet.

Please note: Even Ann Coulter is lobbing bombs at him. Is SHE an SJW?; 3/30/16, 3:13 PM
DKWalser said...: I get that Trump's supporters are mad at "establishment Republicans". I share that anger. What I don't get is why they believe Trump is the answer. Of the Republicans running for office, Cruz was the original anti-establishment candidate. He ran against and beat the establishment's preferred candidate for the senate. As a senator, he's be a thorn in the side of the establishment from the day he was elected -- which is why he's reviled by so many senators on both sides of the aisle. He's led Kamikaze attacks on Obamacare, Obama's refusal to enforce the borders, big spending, etc.

Trump is part of the establishment. His entire business empire is built on getting special favors from government at the expense of small businesses without his clout. He gets things done by buying off politicians. In return for large campaign contributions (and other forms of on-the-books and off-the books "help") from Trump, politicians grant him zoning waivers, use eminent domain to transfer other people's property to Trump, and give him exemptions from state and local taxes. The only thing that's anti-establishment about Trump is his rhetoric. The way he lives, his friends, and the causes he supports are as establishment as it gets.; 3/30/16, 3:16 PM
Birkel said...: I applaud Walker because he correctly identified the weaknesses in the Democrat political machine and systematically dismantled them. Those analytical and persuasive skills were (and are) the reasons I support Walker pursuing higher office.

Cruz is the only candidate discussing a similar effort at the federal level. But the forces arrayed against a federal government shakeup are significantly more challenging so my hopes are not high.; 3/30/16, 3:16 PM
Achilles said...: Brando said...

"Sounds like a reason to support a libertarian, not an abusive-big government strongman. Where is the libertarian argument for Trump? I don't think even he is making that argument. And no, this is not an endorsement of the business-as-usual GOP which hasn't been libertarian either. I just don't see how a guy who openly promises to wield government power is better."

The guy comes from my paradigm. He had to make payroll, pay payroll taxes, fund environmental impact statements, put an outlet every 4 feet in a garage, install as close to R-38 insulation as possible, settle lawsuits with disgruntled employees, and pay taxes whether he made money or not. He had to pay a fee before he put dry wall over the insulation. He had to pay a fee to get the electrical box checked. He had to pay a fee to get the electrical box installed. He had to pay a fee to have the service wire pulled to the electrical box. He had to pay a fee to have the outlet covers inspected.

You might think I am joking about all of these. I am not. I trust him to understand what is wrong more than your lawyers who haven't had a real job or business in their life.

"Pretty much. There's a difference between gratuitously giving Michelle Fields her fifteen minutes of fame and brushing off such minor squabbles. We only know who this Fields woman is because the Trumpists decided to go into full attack mode on her. And now they're the victims?"

That is bullshit and you know it. Romney did exactly what you said would work. How did that work out for us?

You are just trying to justify teaming up with SJW's when they serve your needs. They will be at Cruz events or Rubio events or whoever gets the nomination. Will you stand up to them then? We see through your crap. Enough is enough.; 3/30/16, 3:17 PM
Brando said...: "But WHO is going to cut it? "

Cruz is probably the most consistent on the issue, but the reality is that serious cutting of the government simply won't happen when the public loves their goodies. It's not just "special interests" subverting the will of the people--most of those interests (start with the AARP) represent large voter blocs, and politicians follow that. Anyone elected has to get Congress aboard, and Congress follows their voters.

Best case scenario is someone who can bring gridlock where the alternative is bad action, and can bring action where beneficial, and move a coalition or appeal to the public to grease the wheels. A good administrator is necessary too, as all those agencies writing and enforcing rules have to be well-managed.

Trump I have no faith in on any of those scores, as he doesn't seem to have any understanding of (or interest in) those issues, and rather than "smaller, limited" government constrained by the rule of law he tends towards "better, more active government with the right people in charge" and no real limits on his authority.

Of the major party candidates, Cruz may not be a perfect libertarian but he is the best of the bunch and not for nothing he is by far the smartest person running.; 3/30/16, 3:20 PM
Achilles said...: Steve M. Galbraith said...
"The Trumpsters say they'll go to Washington and clean out the establishment, remove all of those traitors and sellouts now there.

But they also demand that the establishment support Trump and not oppose him. Damn you establishment! How dare you!"

We need the Cruz supporters and the Trump supporters. That is it.

For the rest of you, just make sure the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out. The WASPs have done all they could to destroy the Reagan legacy. In the elegant words of someone smarter than you: "You're fired."; 3/30/16, 3:21 PM
Brando said...: "You might think I am joking about all of these. I am not. I trust him to understand what is wrong more than your lawyers who haven't had a real job or business in their life."

I get that--you see him as a fellow businessman and figure he's more likely than say Cruz or anyone else running to by sympathetic to business. I too would like a government that "gets" business--where Trump falls short for me is that nothing he is proposing suggests he has those interests in mind. A lot of what he says seems like it's coming from Bernie Sanders or Hillary.

"You are just trying to justify teaming up with SJW's when they serve your needs."

Who's teaming up with SJWs? I've had nothing nice to say about disruptive protesters and grievance fiends. As for Fields, I think this whole thing is a pointless mess, typical of the Trump approach. I'm certainly not condoning the police report.; 3/30/16, 3:25 PM
Achilles said...: Brando said...
"But WHO is going to cut it? "

Trump had to pay for environmental impact statements. He had to pay a thousand or so fees every time he tried to build something.

Cruz at most got to help clients get through red tape which he was paid to do. I think he spent most of his time clerking anyways. his actual real life experience is what?

I may be wrong about what happens, but my best guess is Trump has more experience with the problem from the right perspective than Cruz does. Not saying I wouldn't support either, but the idea that Trump enjoyed those regulations over the last 40 years seems pretty dumb.; 3/30/16, 3:27 PM
Achilles said...: Brando said...

"Who's teaming up with SJWs? I've had nothing nice to say about disruptive protesters and grievance fiends. As for Fields, I think this whole thing is a pointless mess, typical of the Trump approach. I'm certainly not condoning the police report."

Fields is being propped up to support the narrative the Democrats and GOPe are trying to create. That tactic and the people who use it need to be recognized and attacked as any other enemy of freedom. There can be no quarter as Romney found out when he failed to address it as such.; 3/30/16, 3:31 PM
mikee said...: Based on the sterling example of "Creepy Uncle Joe" Biden, may I suggest that a ticket with Cruz for President and Trump for Veep could sweep the nation?

After all, both are anti-establishment. One is a hardcore conservative. The other is a "populist" or at least a showman. And how better to combine their voting blocks than having them both on the ticket?

Hell, they could win New York, overcoming the Democrat lie, cheat, and steal advantage in fraudulent votes, if Trump keeps working on the campaign during the general election campaign.; 3/30/16, 3:36 PM
Achilles said...: DKWalser said...
"I get that Trump's supporters are mad at "establishment Republicans". I share that anger. What I don't get is why they believe Trump is the answer. Of the Republicans running for office, Cruz was the original anti-establishment candidate. "

Nothing against Cruz but here it is. Cruz as things stand now is un-electable. I started out supporting him. But he needs someone to break the establishment/media control over the Overton window. Until someone does that he is a misogynist bigot homphobe along with all of his supporters to 60% of the electorate who gets their information from TV. Cruz cannot break that down. He is very very smart, but not up to that task.

Trump has already done massive damage to that apparatus. The fact he has made it this far is impressive. He is standing up to the garbage thrown at him and disarming the media elite. Cruz needs Trump to clear the way for him. We all do.; 3/30/16, 3:37 PM
Achilles said...: mikee said...
"Based on the sterling example of "Creepy Uncle Joe" Biden, may I suggest that a ticket with Cruz for President and Trump for Veep could sweep the nation?"

Other way around.

And all you said is going to happen.

WASPs and plutocrats(redundant), for once, hardest hit.; 3/30/16, 3:39 PM
Achilles said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
"Who cares.

1. Trump will end up with more delegate/nominating votes anyway.

2. The race that matters at this point is Bernie versus the bulldog. (Even though either one should end up beating either Republicrony).

I realize it must very very enthralling living in Wisconsin, but don't let that distract your alleged politics-hatred from the actual questions and issues at stake."

Washington State was over 70% for Bernie.

In a way it makes me proud.

As for the Republicrony comment you are smarter than that. You are just jealous we crushed our establishment and you haven't yet. =P; 3/30/16, 3:46 PM
Diamondhead said...: "Fields is being propped up to support the narrative the Democrats and GOPe are trying to create."

Regardless of who's to blame, the narrative has already been created. The guy has 100% name recognition and a 70% disapproval rating. He's not going to be President. The only question is do the Republicans lose the House along with the Senate.

Personally I think it would be great to have a business man/woman as President. It doesn't have to be someone who you should feel nervous about having the nuclear codes or access to the retributive capability of the federal government.; 3/30/16, 3:49 PM
Meade said...: I'm an Anyone But Clinton Unless It's Trump voter. So I need to help prevent Trump from getting 1237 delegates. If Trump wins Wisconsin, the primary season is over. So I'll hold my nose and vote for Cruz next Tuesday.; 3/30/16, 3:51 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Clinton v. Cruz I'll bet you find a way to go Clinton, Meade. Maybe being able to say "I voted Cruz in the primary" will make it easier to rationalize voting against him in the general ("I had some hope for him then but he just got worse").; 3/30/16, 3:54 PM
Birkel said...: Achilles:

The only way the federal government can help businesses is to get out of the way. Every attempt to help will result in regulatory capture, turf building, log rolling and here we are.

If Trump tries to help, hold onto your wallet.; 3/30/16, 3:55 PM
AlbertAnonymous said...: You're an "Anyone But Clinton Unless It's Trump" voter? What kind of mental masturbation do you have to do to come up with that rubric?

Maybe you can buy one of those Facebook created Virtual Reality headsets on the Althouse Amazon Portal to help you through it...

I'm no Trump fan, but it'd be fun watching the left bend themselves into pretzels insisting that the do-nothing congress they've bagged on for 7 years is somehow "obligated" to do nothing because... Trump.; 3/30/16, 4:06 PM
Jaq said...: U get that Trump's supporters are mad at "establishment Republicans". I share that anger. What I don't get is why they believe Trump is the answer.

How many times do you have to get sold out before you get really mad?; 3/30/16, 4:06 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: @DKWalser,

I get that Trump's supporters are mad at "establishment Republicans". I share that anger. What I don't get is why they believe Trump is the answer.

Hear, hear. This is where I am. I see all the problems that the Trump supporters see, but I don't necessarily buy that Trump is the solution to these problems. We also might differ on the proximate cause (legal term) of these problems.

In my view, the cause of the major problems in our country are:

1. Primarily, the left-wing push by Dems to erode the Constitution, erode Judeo-Christian values, expand the size and power of government, stifle the creative forces of the private sector and appease radical Islam.

2. Secondarily, the small group of Republicans who get elected and either enable 1 or don't fight hard enough to stop 1.

@Achilles,

Trump is going to be the candidate on the right that gets the most votes in the general election. It is up to the vichy wing of the GOP to decide if they are going to keep helping Hillary or not. So far they are allied with the BLM movement and any women who will sue him. At this rate there will be no GOP soon.

You believe this? The "vichy" wing of the GOP is a colorful phrase, good on ya. You got some brains,with that brawn:) But you think you're going to attract GOP voters by calling them "vichy"? If so, you know nuthin' about campaigning or the nuts and bolts of winning elections.

Yes, I'm voting for Trump in the General. The reason is, as you imply, simple: he's better than Hillary. She is awful and will continue the awful policies of Obama.

Yet, Trump is a loudmouth, and a political neophyte, and no matter how many golf courses he's built, he hasn't operated at this high stage. It shows. He's often unprepared, and sloppy with his speech and thought. He makes personal attacks, not reasoned arguments. He's used to giving speeches to fawning employees, who, of course, will heartily clap.

As the front-runner, his job is to attract GOP voters who didn't support him in the primary, and, God forbid, reach across the aisle to find as many Independents and reasonable Dems as he can for the General.

That isn't because I think it's good to play nice. It's because it takes 70 Million votes to win the Presidency. There's a ton of Althouse fence-sitter types. After you've secured the votes from the NASCAR circuit, the WWF viewership, the union of disaffected West Texas truck-drivers, and the Duck Dynasty extended family members, Trump will still need a buncha more voters to win.

It's math, dude.; 3/30/16, 4:11 PM
Birkel said...: tim in vermont:

After anger, it would be nice to see results. What results will this anger yield?; 3/30/16, 4:11 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: Based on the sterling example of "Creepy Uncle Joe" Biden, may I suggest that a ticket with Cruz for President and Trump for Veep could sweep the nation?

Other way around.

Here are two obvious questions.

1. Assuming Trump actually allows himself to become the nominee*, then assuming that he wins, how many terms would a President Trump desire for himself? The reflex assumption would be two, but why, or why not?

2. If poised to be chosen as VP, under what circumstances would Ted Cruz really turn it down to go back to being a loathed Seanator for four or eight years when the option to become President from a position of administration incumbency would be no more than four years away?

*The apogee for the brand of the current, pre-presidential Donald Trump is to, but for the intervention of heinous, dastardly events, to have been chosen as a presidential contender. Beyond that point potential loserness lurks behind every bush for actual presidential Donald Trump.; 3/30/16, 4:14 PM
StephenFearby said...: The Wisconsin primary returns could well prove to be a reflection of THE "Turning Point"...which most sane people have been waiting...and waiting...and almost have given up waiting for:

NRO's Jim Geraghty had a nice piece today on this possible shift in the wind:

A Few Trump Fans Suddenly See the Man They’ve Been Defending

'...Now look at Stephanie Cegielski, formerly the communications director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC:

"...The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump.

And if you are one of the disaffected voters — one of the silent majority like me — who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters.

He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump’s voice.

Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many “pieces of ass.” He is, at heart, a self-preservationist."

Trump supporters, no one should let you off of that bandwagon now. You should be handcuffed to that Titanic you volunteered to crew.

Donald Trump didn’t suddenly change in the past few days, weeks or months. He’s the same guy he always was, the same guy that most of us in the conservative movement and GOP have been staunchly opposing for the past year. He didn’t abruptly become reckless, obnoxious, ill-informed, erratic, hot-tempered, pathologically dishonest, narcissistic, crude and catastrophically unqualified for the presidency overnight. He’s always been that guy, and you denied it and ignored it and hand-waved it away and made excuses every step of the way because you were convinced that you were so much smarter than the rest of us. You were so certain that you had received some superior wavelength giving you special insight into the Donald; only you could tell that it was all an act. Only you could grasp that his constant courting of controversy was just to get attention from the media. Only you could instinctively sense that his style would play brilliantly in the general election and win over working-class Democrats. (SPOILER ALERT: It isn’t.) You insisted that you could “coach him.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433432/mental-utterly-stupid-trump-only-cares-about-trump?target=author&tid=814

It's too bad that the nebbish Kasich didn't get out of the way, since Wisconsin is a winner-take-all state with complications:

"24 district delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 8 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates. [Republican Party of Wisconsin Constitution Article X Section 5.]

18 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 5 bonus delegates plus 3 RNC delegates) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide. [Republican Party of Wisconsin Constitution Article X Section 6.]"; 3/30/16, 4:31 PM
Fabi said...: Trump can't win without Cruz supporters and Cruz can't win without Trump supporters -- I think that's unarguable. It's also a point of contention in that those two declared a truce early on but went sideways as the field narrowed. I wish they'd have agreed to a Trump-Cruz ticket with Trump agreeing to serve only one term. Cruz would be a perfect Senate pro tem and would lend Trump credibility within the operating capsule.

I don't see that scenario as a possibility now, and it only diminishes the chances for reconciliation and victory in November. A pox on them both.; 3/30/16, 4:32 PM
Alex said...: Honestly I just can't give a fuck anymore.

Either Hitlery will win and we'll have that hell for 4 years. Or Trump will win and he'll be so damaging to the GOP brand that they'll lose the House/Senate for 20 years.

We deserve the 'leaders' we get right now. America as it is now in the aggregate, a pathetic nation.; 3/30/16, 4:42 PM
Fabi said...: @StephenFearby: The gratuitous insults in that article are the perfect way to attract Trump supporters to an eventual nominee who's not Trump. I'm glad the big brains at the NRO have a medium in which to vent, but it's myopic and self-defeating. An ounce of reflection would reveal their complicity in the vacuum which created DJT, but virtue signaling is the latest fad for "conservatives".; 3/30/16, 4:44 PM
Original Mike said...: Glad to see that the fact that I won't be able to vote isn't going to matter.; 3/30/16, 4:50 PM
eric said...: If Cruz wins this in the end, we will have Trump to thank.

Trump was the only way Cruz could have gotten this far. NRO and the rest would be piling on Cruz 24/7 right now and building up Kasich or someone else if it weren't for Trump.; 3/30/16, 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: eric: For years I've been told not to take my ball and go home after the primaries. For years I've been told to suck it up and keep the Democrat out of office. I've been told this by the conservative talking heads. NRO, Michael Medved, Jenifer Rubin, etc.

And now that the tables are turned, they've decided to burn the whole thing down.

They've never been your allies. I know it's a blow to one's pride to have to admit that one has been the target of a slick political pump-n-dump, but there it is. Now that it's morning you see that they don't respect you. But they never had any respect for you.

Many on the right have absolutely lost their minds as they've seen their power vanish.

Their behavior is rational (now manifesting in an insane sort of way, I'll grant). Their power isn't going to vanish any time soon, because they'll easily find jobs and influence in the existing structures. You have noticed how easily they morph into shitlibs, right? Right now they're just pissed that a significant number of the rubes they've been flim-flamming are on to them ("ou sont les bons rubes?!"), and they're lashing out a bit in reaction to unfamiliar feelings of insecurity.

I don't think this election cycle is going to change much, whatever happens. Too many gormless cucks out there who are still thinking, "if only the tsar knew!". But, deo volente, I'll live long enough to see a meaningful reaction and realignment.; 3/30/16, 5:24 PM
Browndog said...: Watch how fast Cruz gets destroyed should he overtake Trump.

At least Trump lasted this long with everyone on the planet attacking him outside of the working middle class, which is his strongest support.

Fuck the working middle class.

Hillary or Not Trump is where it's at-; 3/30/16, 5:26 PM
Fabi said...: Anglelyne@5:24 -- The last two paragraphs of your post are spot on.; 3/30/16, 5:34 PM
Birkel said...: Yeah, Browndog, nobody has been attacking Ted Cruz since he was elected to the Senate.

/sarc; 3/30/16, 6:37 PM
rcocean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/16, 6:40 PM
rcocean said...: I'm not surprised. Wisconsin is more like Minnesota (politically) then Wisconsinites want to admit.

Its hasn't been greatly impacted by Immigration or Globalization compared to other states. Nor - despite the progressive tradition & Joe McCarthy - is it a state full of populists.

But I'm a little shocked that Kasich isn't doing better.; 3/30/16, 6:40 PM
sane_voter said...: Trump was a welcome respite at the beginning, giving the middle finger to the MSM and demonstrating his skill at manhandling almost anyone who opposed him, whether it be GOP candidates or leftist journalists. However, his growing mound of fuck-ups is too big to ignore. Plus, I have predicted for a long time that he will do almost nothing he has promised, as once he is elected and no contract to bind him he will most surely disappoint his followers in a way our previous GOP pols never did. Because his promises are much bigger, and thus a much harder fall.; 3/30/16, 7:33 PM
sane_voter said...: The other thing I don't understand is how did any GOP voter in 2010 and 2014 expect to get much of anything done with Obama in the White House even with the House and Senate in GOP hands? this was always about stopping the bleeding. It is a miracle the GOP is in the position they are in after the 2006 and 2008 wipeouts. After 2008, there were 60 Dem senators and they were +79 in the House. Now it is the GOP with 54 senators and +58 members in the House. 2016 was to be the year the trifecta was completed and then a conservative agenda could be achieved. If Trump was president with the 2008 Congress he wouldn't be able to get anything done that almost any GOP voter would want.; 3/30/16, 7:43 PM
Diamondhead said...: That's the hell of it. The Dems are running a historically bad candidate. Leave it to the Republicans to find someone who can lose to her.; 3/30/16, 8:06 PM
Sebastian said...: "The other thing I don't understand is how did any GOP voter in 2010 and 2014 expect to get much of anything done with Obama in the White House" Way too sane. Don't you realize it's all the fault of the GOPe?; 3/30/16, 8:33 PM
James Pawlak said...: Has there been any scientific (Valid, reliable and with a high level of confidence) as to the "batting average" of that pool????; 3/30/16, 9:14 PM
StephenFearby said...: Politico has pertinent story out today on Charlie Sykes, a guy with a big following who likely had a big influence on Cruz's recent jump in the Wisconsin polls:

Two excerpts from:

Why Wisconsin’s “Never Trump” movement is different

And how one radio host used his influence to make it that way.

'...Warning his listeners about splitting the anti-Trump vote, he urged them to support Cruz mainly as a means to an end—keeping Trump from securing the nomination. “I’m more anti-Trump than pro-Cruz,” he told listeners, asking them to think long and hard before casting a vote for John Kasich, the Ohio governor who is poised to play spoiler. “It’s a binary choice,” Sykes continued. “Either Ted Cruz is going to win or Donald Trump is going to win.”

“Ted Cruz was not our first choice or second choice,” Sykes continued as we stood outside his studio during a commercial break. “He’s not the best fit for Wisconsin. I know a lot of people coming on board in favor of him are swallowing hard and recognizing that this is it—this is our firewall, our firewall of sanity.”'

'Sykes has been unable to move the “Trumpkins”—although the man wandering around the parking lot of the Holiday Inn Express in Janesville Tuesday afternoon after Trump’s rally there with a sign that read “Charlie Sykes SUCKS” seems an indication that at least some of them know who he is.

In his final minutes on the air Wednesday, he spoke directly to the Trump supporters he’s thus far failed to convince — if any of them happened to be tuned in.

“Do you understand the implicit contempt the man has for you?” he said. “When he says he could shoot someone and you’d still support him, he’s saying he thinks you’re a sucker.”'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/why-wisconsins-never-trump-movement-is-different-221407#ixzz44RTpE87n; 3/30/16, 9:23 PM
mccullough said...: About 57% of the Voting Eligible Population voted in the last presidential election. The general election this year will no doubt have an even lower turnout. Hopefully we have a single digit turnout election. It doesn't really matter. The country is beyond repair. The only thing we have going for us is that the rest of the world is even more fucked up.; 3/30/16, 9:57 PM
Achilles said...: Birkel said...
"Achilles:

The only way the federal government can help businesses is to get out of the way. Every attempt to help will result in regulatory capture, turf building, log rolling and here we are.

If Trump tries to help, hold onto your wallet."

You think a guy who has had to fill out environmental impact statements for the last 30 years is going to be a fan of bureaucracy. Even after he has said he is going to eliminate the EPA...

That's dumb.; 3/31/16, 4:22 AM
Achilles said...: StephenFearby said...
"The Wisconsin primary returns could well prove to be a reflection of THE "Turning Point"...which most sane people have been waiting...and waiting...and almost have given up waiting for:

NRO's Jim Geraghty had a nice piece today on this possible shift in the wind:"

Hello Jim.

Nobody reads the NRO anymore except a bunch of crony insiders. Continue on with your cruises where people who think they are cool go on a boat and tell you how smart you are. Nobody out here even gives you the time of day. The NRO is a rag propped up by the chamber of commerce and other crony insiders.

It is no longer of relevance.; 3/31/16, 4:26 AM
Brando said...: "That's the hell of it. The Dems are running a historically bad candidate. Leave it to the Republicans to find someone who can lose to her."

That's the hell of it. A year ago, it was looking like the Dems were making a huge mistake clearing the path for Hillary with all her negatives and weaknesses, and following a relatively unpopular president and the GOP would also benefit from the "two term itch". A decent chance for the GOP to hold the Senate, and near certainty of holding the House, and getting the White House back--and being in the driver's seat.

Now it's looking like a landslide loss, almost no chance of holding the Senate and the House is back in play. Hillary could not only have a Congress ready to pass whatever fun stuff she has planned, she could pick three Supreme Court Justices decisively tilting the Court back to the Left. Won't that be fun?

But I guess we should ignore the polls because Trump does so well with the white working class (which Romney did as well) and it'll be 1980 all over again, and the hated GOP establishment (surprise! If you criticize Trump you're part of the establishment) which is stupid and terrible needs to line up behind Trump because it'll be our fault if he loses, certainly not Trump's fault himself (or those of his followers who seem to excuse literally everything he does).

This really couldn't shape up better for the Dems who should be on the ropes right now.; 3/31/16, 5:52 AM
Birkel said...: Achilles:

Big businesses want the regulations because the regulations are barriers to entry that protect future profits. To think otherwise is dumb.

Why were insurance companies in favor of Obamacare? Were they dumb to want regulations?

Your analysis is an inch deep. Sorry, but that is true.; 3/31/16, 7:14 AM
Rusty said...: Why were insurance companies in favor of Obamacare? Were they dumb to want regulations?

A set number of insurance companies have to provide insurance because everybody in the country is forced to buy it. Are you kidding? On paper any, it's a license to print money. People are actually forced to buy your shitty product or pay a tax. In reality people will go through great lengths to avoid paying for something they perceive as unnecessary.; 3/31/16, 7:50 AM
Brando said...: "Big businesses want the regulations because the regulations are barriers to entry that protect future profits. To think otherwise is dumb."

The thing is different businesses want different things--what's good for Budweiser isn't what's good for say Allagash Brewery, or some upstart trying to break into the market. The question is whether the people running government can create a regulatory environment that favors competition and growth, rather than protecting rent seekers or creating greater burdens than tradeoffs for business in general. If Trump was coming out with policy arguments that suggested he gets that, it'd be one thing. But between his vagueness and flip flopping, as well as economic populist rhetoric, I think the GOP is about to nominate their most statist candidate since Nixon.; 3/31/16, 8:08 AM
Birkel said...: Rusty:
That is half the analysis. The other half is the ability to limit competition through the government. Government enforces the cartel. That gets around the Sherman Acts and the FTC regulations. Brilliant!

Brandon:
They cannot create such regulations as you suggest. Between regulatory capture and feather-bedding (et cetera) and the difficulty of collating all the necessary data (impossible) it cannot happen. Ever.; 3/31/16, 9:40 AM
Brando said...: "They cannot create such regulations as you suggest. Between regulatory capture and feather-bedding (et cetera) and the difficulty of collating all the necessary data (impossible) it cannot happen. Ever."

They can reduce or eliminate harmful regulations. Take the beer industry example I used--use federal preemption on commerce clause grounds to reduce licensing burdens (in time and legal fees) and eliminate the requirement to sell through a distributor (which far as I can tell, can only be justified as a way of keeping distributors in business).

Also, require that anyone filing an EEO complaint put up a bond which they will lose if their claim is deemed frivolous (controversial, but we need some deterrent).

Eliminate any requirement to offer health care or any other benefit with any job.; 3/31/16, 9:59 AM
walter said...: Must be that new sex hound persona working the magic. Trump's the fuddy duddy who marries his mistresses.; 4/1/16, 1:31 PM