It's conventional (and seemingly politically correct) to say what Scarborough said, and not too many people find it appealing to point out what Nate Cohn is pointing out, but the numbers are whatever the numbers are.
And I happen to think Donald Trump is good with numbers. I think he studies the numbers and thinks in terms of numbers. He doesn't talk about that much — other than poll numbers when he likes them — but I suspect his business practice is highly numerical and he's bringing this orientation to politics. The other day he referred to his "statistician" and then joked that the crowd would find statistics too boring. I think he's done the math and he's doing the math.
Cohn's main point is that exit polls seem to have undercounted the "whiter, less-educated and older" voters, and 2 other sources of data show significantly higher numbers.
The larger number of white working-class voters implies that Democrats are far more dependent on winning white working-class voters, and therefore more vulnerable to a populist candidate like Mr. Trump....
The real pool of missing white voters are those who haven’t participated in any recent election, or aren’t even registered to vote. There are millions of these missing white voters — but they will be much harder to mobilize. Many are young, and might not be especially favorable to Mr. Trump. The older ones are true bystanders in American politics.
To win, Mr. Trump will need to make gains among white working-class voters. The earliest evidence, and polling this early can be quite inaccurate, suggests that he is doing that handily.ADDED: Trump derangement syndrome is raging in the comments over there at the NYT. Here's the second most up-voted comment:
So far, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton by 27 points among white voters without a degree, 58 percent to 31 percent, in the last six national surveys from major news organizations. In the final 2012 polls, Mr. Romney led by just 19 points among such voters, 58 percent to 39 percent, over Mr. Obama.
Very interesting analysis, but it is a snap-shot and does not take into account the effects of the campaign. Mr. Trump is medically unfit to become president. He suffers from a severe personality disorder and possibly the early stages of dementia. As the campaign progresses, he will become increasingly unhinged and all but the least informed voters will notice it.You know, a lot of real people suffer from mental illness and dementia. You'd think it would be considered politically incorrect to use this as a metaphor or as some kind of actual prediction. Ironically, those who attack Trump this way are indulging in the kind of disgust and disinclusion that they seem to want to be able to hate Trump for using.
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
I cut a paragraph about Cohn's use of the word vulnerable. It was based on misreading something.
Who would even want to win thanks to white voters? Whites are yucky.
The question is not whether there are enough white voters but whether there are enough white voters in battleground states who will vote for the shallow clown over the shrill criminal. The prediction models give the GOP a chance but Trump's antics will depress the moderate I'm-no-bigot country-club and suburban married-women vote.
Mr. Trump is 70 years old and still in the developer business. He is quite good with numbers.
A useless article. The issue comes down to "potential voters" versus "actual voter voters"
Hillary's turnout numbers seem very weak. and getting weaker.
We all (me, Joe and Bernie) await the results of the FBI primary.
It's not just "white working class voters" but how much of an increase he'd need from them (particularly in swing states) compared to what he loses among white women, racial minorities and white collar men. Can he offset those losses? We'll have a better sense of this after the conventions when people start drifting back to their parties, and when we have a better sense of whether a recession hits this year. Those factors will be what determines this election.
There are no blacks who are honest, is the assumption.
This is a Republican race to lose.
65-68 percent of the country is non-Hispanic white. Democrats only get ~30% of white voters anyway. If you peel off 3, 4, 5% of the white Democrat vote it's a 50 state landslide for Republicans, everything else remaining the same.
or
In 2008 and 2012, blacks, which are 12%-13% of the population voted in such numbers that they became 16-17% of the electorate and went 95% for Obama. If blacks don't turn out to vote for the Democrat nominee in the way they did for Obama, it's going to be difficult for the Democrat to win.
The Democrat Media hypes minority numbers up so much because they want to demoralize Republicans - ever wonder why they have tons of electoral college websites (270towin etc) and they talk about how it's always uphill for the Republicans to win enough states. Someone should make a demographic website broken down solely on ethnic lines to show how easy it is to flip every state in the country with just a few additional points of white voters.
I often ask young people in their 20's -30s why they don't bother to vote. One shocking reason why is that it opens them to jury duty--something which many of them dread. I always go out of my way to point out what a positive experience actually serving on a jury was for me. "Yes, but" the answer comes,"you had a sympathetic employer." A week's worth of lost wages (hours not clocked in) can be devastating.
Campy:
Yes, indeed. As a matter of fact, if he wins because of white voters, that will PROVE he is a racist! As well as anyone who voted for him! :)
Over 75% of the country is white according to the Census and within that segment are 17% or so that are Hispanic. That leaves nearly 60% of the country as white. If the rest of you were as motivated to vote as California's were this week then about 72% of eligible voters represents about 69 million white voters available to be moved to the polls if sufficiently engaged by the candidates.
69 million potentially registered white voters.
The entire population of black Americans is only 39 million. About the same for Hispanics. Assuming a similar participation rate (which is a SWAG at this point) yields potential voting bloc of roughly 30 million brown and black Americans.
So do white working class voters who used to vote D still line up for the Dowager Empress or not? Can Donald Trump bring the white voter "out of the shadows" and get them to show up?
It's an interesting year. Let's see.
"I often ask young people in their 20's -30s why they don't bother to vote. One shocking reason why is that it opens them to jury duty--something which many of them dread. I always go out of my way to point out what a positive experience actually serving on a jury was for me. "Yes, but" the answer comes,"you had a sympathetic employer." A week's worth of lost wages (hours not clocked in) can be devastating."
There was a time when I would have dreaded jury duty because I had to bill my hours, so even though my employer wouldn't have penalized me for doing jury duty I still would have had to find a way to make up those hours somehow (effectively making it like using your vacation time for jury duty).
But the best reason to not vote is that individually your vote won't make a difference. The only thing people get out of voting is that sense of registering their preference, but among all the other votes cast that preference is lost in the sea. It's more of an expressive thing for the voter rather than a sense of making a difference.
Scarborough is on his rant lately. Growing more arrogant with every additional minute he spends in front of the camera.
He is outright calling Trump a racist, just like every Democrat on TV would do to any Republican nominee. But then Joe jumps right in to identity politics that keeps us all separated.
It's funny how so many of our politicians in TV pundits enjoy righteous indignation more than masturbation.
I think Trump is going to gain more minority voters than most prognosticators can imagine.
If I were a young black born in the Chicago hellhole, given a substandard education(if you can call it that), usually unemployed, never exposed to the finer things in life and largely forgotten by the Democrats once they get their votes I might be favorable to someone new in the political spectrum. The same goes for the Latinos.
In fact, as one who has lived among Mexican Americans most of my life I believe the Latino community is ripe for GOP inroads. For one thing the Mexican American culture is naturally conservative, family oriented and rather straight-laced in many respects. But I also believe they dimly realize through the fog of MSM anti-Trump pro-progressive crap that the Democrats have short-changed them.
Yeah, Trump's got a real shot; all he needs is a really solid GOTV infrastructure combined with superb campaign finance/fundraising efforts using a large, experienced staff so he'll be able to compete with Clinton's likely $1.25B total spending this time...
Oh, he doesn't have any of those things in place, and it's nearly mid-June? Hmmm.
People ask me if I worry because Texas will be half Hispanic in the not to distant future. I say "No". I say that because nobody understands the current racial math. The question usually comes from somebody not familiar with Texas or Hispanics in this area. It's often a jibe that reveals their latent racism.
You see, people away from here think every Hispanic is a poorly educated immigrant fresh across the border. That, of course is nonsense. A big proportion of the Hispanic growth is from racial math. My very Anglo step daughter married a Hispanic boy. My grandchildren are both - Hispanic. I don't know how many generations it would take for these girls children (and so on) to not be Hispanic but it won't be in my lifetime. One girl is very fair like her mother and the other takes after her dad.
It's not uncommon hear to have Juan Garcias that are white enough to blind you in the sun and John Smiths who are very dark. It wasn't too long a ago that a local leader was complaining the too many Hispanics were moving to the suburbs.
There is a natural bias inherited by the Posterity of reproductive couples, but developing a prejudice is not an inevitable outcome. We should probably end [class] diversity and other Pro-choice policies before we pass the point of no return.
I have no idea if Trump has a GOTV operation. Romney thought he did and it flopped.
This year is, I suspect, going to make a lot of "Political Science" obsolete.
Will apathetic white voters who were nit even registered turn out ?
Will blacks, now that the messiah is not running, turn out for Hillary ?
Will the Bernie voters turn out for her?
I don't think anyone knows and may not know until Election Day.
Lots of minorities are going to vote for Donald J. Trump. Let's be real here, neither party establishment gives a damn about working class America.
"This is a Republican race to lose."
Indeed!
Grackle I would love to share that belief - -and I do in fact for the black voters. Certainly the Obama high-water mark of 95% loyalty won't be repeated. A lot of black voters are "conservative" as far as traditional marriage, religious liberty and opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. I see the Hildebeast's support among that population shrinking. And Trump has demonstrated a commitment to hiring and promoting women and minorities and women minorities. He'll have Omarosa and other advocates out there working for him.
It's the Mexican-American vote that is a mystery to me right now. I work with several immigrants legal and otherwise from Mexico, and our work takes us deep into farm country to interact with the almost 100% illegal work force. Spanish language TV and radio are 24/7 Trump-scaring their viewers/listeners. This is often the only source of news for many recent arrivals. Granted illegals aren't supposed to vote, but ex-Congressman Bob Dornan can testify to how well California enforces that law. And one cause for optimism is that in the past the American-Mexican population in California has shown an admiral ability to vote against ILLEGAL immigration while supporting reform for LEGAL immigrants. Remember my home state is now Hispanic majority and in the not-too-distant past we overwhelmingly passed Prop 187 which would have denied all public benefits to illegal immigrants. It is a statistical certainty that half or more of American-Mexican voters supported this.
Maybe Madame Secretary will inspire them as well. But not to the extent that the Black Jesus did.
"Yeah, Trump's got a real shot; all he needs is a really solid GOTV infrastructure combined with superb campaign finance/fundraising efforts using a large, experienced staff so he'll be able to compete with Clinton's likely $1.25B total spending this time..."
If Trump and the GOP don't make up for lost time and get something like that in place quickly, we'll have a chance to see just how valuable those operations really are. Can a celebrity using free media get enough turnout to overcome a data-driven operation that targets voters and brings them to the polls? Or is that stuff overrated?
In 2012, both sides tried the turnout operation but Obama's was far better (it had been in place since 2008 and had a head start). But Obama also had fundamentals on his side (namely the economy) so maybe he would have won anyway without such an operation.
Plus Trump may not be as "routed" among minorities as the fancy people think. If you were black or Hispanic and planning to vote for Trump do you think you would tell anybody, even a pollster, in today's environment?
I'm with the less educated demographic.
Actually, I know quite a few 'people of color' who are supporting Trump. They like what he has to say, in spite of the MSM telling them they couldn't possibly.
So Joe Scarborough has gone from actively promoting Trump during the primaries, and is now saying that Trump can't win..,
Is that about it? Rooting for Trump to get the nomination and then get schlonged in the general? That would be MSNBC's corporate policy, right?
"Plus Trump may not be as "routed" among minorities as the fancy people think. If you were black or Hispanic and planning to vote for Trump do you think you would tell anybody, even a pollster, in today's environment?"
It's simpler than that. He probably won't be "routed" compared to Romney's losses because there's not much lower you could go--the GOP gets maybe 1 in 10 black votes, and in the last two cycles worse than that because Obama was on the ticket. With Obama off, it's likely to revert back to about 1 in 10, possibly a point or two higher. But anyone thinking he's going to beat Jerry Ford's 17% is dreaming.
Similar goes the Hispanic vote. He may do worse than Romney's 27% but how much room is there to drop below that?
Likewise, the white vote isn't likely to shift much--the GOP does very well with that vote, so there's not much room to move.
This won't be a blowout. Trump isn't going to cause a major shift among minority voters any more than Hillary will do so with Republicans. Both have a 45/55 floor/ceiling.
rhhardin said...
"I'm with the less educated demographic."
Me too. Physicists for Trump! It ain't rocket science, folks.
This election has exposed a lot of conservative political pundits and bloggers who I previously respected, too many to name. Carl Icahn likes Trump and people who have built companies like him too such as Bernard Marcus and Ken Langone whereas the crony capitalists (Warren Buffett) are happy with Hillary and the government trough.
Last chance for the white folks, savvy minorities, Evangelical Christians and Republicans. It is Trump's to lose with the help of stupid Republicans like Ryan, McConnell, etc.
Me too. Physicists for Trump! It ain't rocket science, folks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
If you live in New York and carefully observe the people on the street you will come to believe that the dramatic demographic shift has taken place and you will write and think nonsense about culture and politics.
Whites is too broad a term to rule out a win. He needs to specify blonde and blue eyed people. That makes it a fair fight.
If Trump gets Bernie to take his V-P slot, the white vote will be monolithic.
He suffers from a severe personality disorder and possibly the early stages of dementia.
As opposed to Bernie & Hillary?
If you live in New York and carefully observe the people on the street you will come to believe that the dramatic demographic shift has taken place and you will write and think nonsense about culture and politics.
Not if you live where I live (Tribeca) and work (Midtown). I interact with very, very few ethnic minorities in a month. Maybe when I get a cup of coffee the barista is a minority, but otherwise I interact only with whites. Even weekends in Tribeca the street scene is 80% white. I suspect that most other upper middle class New Yorkers are the same, and going further up the income ladder it's probably even more rarefied.
The problem for Trump is not the number of white people but the fact that a good fraction of them benefit quite nicely from the current system and do not want any change. Businessmen whose businesses are dependent on cheap labor, homeowners whose gardener and pool guy are Hispanic, farmers who rely on Hispanics for most of their labor needs, manufacturers who outsource most of their manufacturing, none of these people will vote for Trump.
Whites currently lack a sense of racial unity, in large part because they are the majority. Trump has to convince these people that their long term interests are threatened by a continuation of the status quo. That won't be easy.
You know, a lot of real people suffer from mental illness and dementia. You'd think it would be considered politically incorrect to use this as a metaphor or as some kind of actual prediction. Ironically, those who attack Trump this way are indulging in the kind of disgust and disinclusion that they seem to want to be able to hate Trump for using.
This is obviously nothing new. Few liberals could constrain themselves from mocking members of the Tea Party as "teabaggers", you know, those despicable people prone to dipping their testicles in each another's mouths between bout of mutual fellatio and anal sex.
Obviously, "carpet munchers" wouldn't deliver the same play on words with respect to the Tea Party, but just wait until some Republicans try to launch an inclusive "Broadloom Movement".
^ And I mean that disparagingly about the educated media/finance/fashion/art class in New York. When I was growing up in Virginia, I interacted with many more black people than I do today and I was in roughly the same economic class.
The people that write for the NYT, NYM, New Yorker, and whatever other culture rag up there interact with people that are nowhere near as diverse as American is. That's why they're always pushing "diversity" on us - they imagine everyone's daily interactions are as lily white as their own. They don't realize that the average American politely and productively interacts with plenty of diverse people - many even have friends that aren't the same ethnicity!
They just can't understand that, because it's not their experience. And they're the type of people that aren't bright enough to understand someone else's experience unless they've lived it first hand.
That's my take on it - I go to dinner with people that work as journalists at the NYT and WSJ, and I'm telling you that's what's going on.
If these college boys, the 30 something wise men, would extract their heads from the fetid swamps of race and class and actually talk to people they just might get an inkling of a clue about what is going on around them.
I don't think anyone should presume on any significant numbers of blacks voting for Trump. One way we can measure that is via the City of Detroit raw numbers in November of 2016.
Detroit voters (something like 83% black) voted 98.7% for Obama. And most importantly, turnout was extremely high. 2008 and 2012 were the first years in American history where African-American voter turnout virtually matched, and then exceeded white voter turnout.
I have all along thought that was the main problem, in the defeat of Mitt Romney. The Democrats' turnout machine.
One might think that without Obama at the top of the ticket, we'd get a 2016 general election that looked more like the 2010 and 2012 midterms. If you think that, and want to use that to prognosticate that Clinton will lose, that's fine with me. It is one of the reasons that I thought that this could be a winnable year for a Republican presidential candidate, before people got suckered into Trump.
But the Obama turnout apparatus still exists; and it matters far more in the electoral college than in congressional races. And Obama himself is going to personally work for the same turnout he had.
Oh, and while there is a large mythology built around Mitt Romney supposedly not producing a big Republican turnout in 2012, I expect that Trump's turnout problems will be larger. Because there are so many mainstream Republicans who are turned off by the volume of stupid things that Trump says and because he is such a personally repugnant character. Presidential elections are, sadly, personalized/personality things and less about policy. Hence, the popular support for Obama.
Spanish language TV and radio are 24/7 Trump-scaring their viewers/listeners.
Yeah, I know. But most of those affected by the propaganda are new illegals, chronic back and forth border-crossers or illegals who have settled down permanently and been here for years. Only the last group votes in any numbers to matter for now.
The bulk of Mexican Americans that vote have been here for many generations, frequently longer than their anglo counterparts. For many of those the language has been lost but the underpinnings of the culture remain strong. And the culture definitely leans conservative in its social outlook if not its political viewpoint – so far. I think it’s a natural fit for the Right side of the political spectrum but it hasn’t happened yet because the right candidate hasn’t come along(Bush jr. came closest) and the spineless GOP in the past has tacitly accepted the progressive anti-GOP memes.
The current GOP leadership has decided after their last presidential election drubbing that they need to be better but came to the wrong conclusion – that the way to win the Latino vote is to suck up to them and promise them things like the Democrats do. Just trying to buy them will not work – the Democrats have that market cornered. They need an inspirational figure – someone charismatic.
I think Trump could be that candidate.
"One might think that without Obama at the top of the ticket, we'd get a 2016 general election that looked more like the 2010 and 2012 midterms. If you think that, and want to use that to prognosticate that Clinton will lose, that's fine with me. It is one of the reasons that I thought that this could be a winnable year for a Republican presidential candidate, before people got suckered into Trump."
The 2010 and 2014 midterms are a poor comparison--the turnout is far lower in midterms than presidential years, and usually they work against incumbent presidents.
The only question is whether Hillary is replicating the Obama turnout operation, and how well that works for her. Going against her is the fact that Obama is far better at inspiring votes on the left than she is, but on the other hand, she has the specter of Trump there to motivate her base. I can't imagine her matching Obama's numbers with blacks, but she should do about as well with white women and Hispanics.
People who don't register to vote because they don't want to be eligible for jury duty are misinformed. Jurors are drawn from more than the registered voter lists. They get lists from people who have driver's licenses, too. If you don't want to be called for jury duty you also need to walk or ride the bus.
America is in a bad way if the white, working class can be considered a marginal voting bloc by the dominant political party........People aren't fleeing Mexico and Muslim lands to escape from bigots like Donald Trump........What evidence exists to show that Hillary is saner and more grounded than Donald Trump. You have to be delusional to think that.
IMO, nothing could help Trump's campaign any more than the opprobrium of the likes of Ryan and McConnell. And Graham.
There are enough early-and-often, undocumented alien, and dead Democrat voters for Hillary to win.
There are enough early-and-often, undocumented alien, and dead Democrat voters for Hillary to win.
That's what I've been trying to point out! Bernie should have the CA primary investigated. Since they are registered automatically to vote when they get a drivers license, what's stopping illegals from voting??
@Sebastian, Professor Althouse objects to women being called "shrill."
No matter how shrill they are.
Trump derangement syndrome is raging in the comments over there at the NYT.
This week three people told me, out of the blue, they are voting for Gary Johnson. They all said it like they are surprised at themselves, like this is a momentous decision or something. If you hate Hillary and Trump, and you're not a socialist, it's kind of a no-brainer!
If you want a medical name for this phenomenon, I think it is "tired of the drama." And both Trump and HIllary promise way too much drama and upset. Ditto any socialist.
Gary Johnson is the choice for calm people. I hope he realizes who his voters are!
Lots of minorities are going to vote for Donald J. Trump. Let's be real here, neither party establishment gives a damn about working class America.
True. And the Democrats keep talking about the Middle Class and we know that the Middle Class is not the Working Class, since the MC is made up of professionals, yuppie techies, etc. Nothing wrong with that [it's the class I've been in most of my life] but the hardships of the past eight years on the Working Class have been epic and neither party has moved to alleviate them.
"IMO, nothing could help Trump's campaign any more than the opprobrium of the likes of Ryan and McConnell."
Clearly Trump doesn't think so or he wouldn't get so pissed when people like that refuse to support him. But I agree with you that the grudging support of people like that doesn't really help him--aren't they precisely the sort of people he was running against?
"Gary Johnson is the choice for calm people. I hope he realizes who his voters are!"
Unlike in normal years, the third party candidate is actually the one with the most relevant governing experience. Far as I can tell, the only reason a conservative would have a problem with Johnson is if they think he's too noninterventionist and too soft on the drug war. For a lot of people, those are features, not bugs.
"Lesser of two evils" only makes sense when one of the evils is actually tolerable. Why settle for unacceptable?
If you actually like Trump or Hillary, then it's a different story.
Gary Johnson is the choice for calm people.
I doubt one person in a hundred could tell you who Gary Johnson is. We are not a calm people.
Gary "Open Borders" Johnson!
Because Mexican nationals beating up American citizens at a political rally is who we are now!
Wait, it's always who we were! One of those founding ideas in our proposition nation.
Being calm as your house burns down might be a sign of some sort of delusion. "Calm" is not a virtue.
The last accepted bigotry is against straight white men. The only thing that hasn't happened yet is turning the hoses and dogs on us.
the hardships of the past eight years on the Working Class have been epic and neither party has moved to alleviate them.
I would say that the Working Class has been getting screwed for considerably longer than that.
Both parties seem to be for unrestricted immigration and free trade. There was never any question that globalism was going to be bad for the working class. The plan, such as it was, appeared to be that all those working class people would get jobs in the "knowledge economy." They would "get job in computers" or some such bromide.
Meanwhile, the middle and upper classes would benefit from cheap labor and low-priced goods.
And the rich would definitely get richer.
After all, if you pretty much control all of the Media and the upper-echelons of both major political parties what could go wrong?
The few useful people born to proles can be invited into the outer party and the rest can be pacified via soma in the form of meth, opoids, and tv. Hey, maybe we should finally get around to legalizing pot!
There are some ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans but from a practical standpoint, since Republicans seem utterly unable to do anything to stop, let alone reverse, the far left's agenda at the national level, what difference does that make to the average schmo.
What, I want to ask, is the point of you Republican House Members and Senators if you cannot get corrupt, law-breaking mid-level bureaucrats fired and jailed? Why do you exist?
Needless to say, the Middle Class did not expect most of their jobs to be outsourced. Oh, and the Upper-middle Class, they have no idea what is coming.
@BigMike: "Professor Althouse objects to women being called "shrill." No matter how shrill they are." Nah, she couldn't be that thin-skinned.
"I expect that Trump's turnout problems will be larger. Because there are so many mainstream Republicans who are turned off by the volume of stupid things that Trump says and because he is such a personally repugnant character. "
You may be correct but the 9th circuit is doing what it can to help.
I expect that when it gets down to it, the NeverTrumpers will think again. Not the real fanatics but most.
"You'd think it would be considered politically incorrect to use this as a metaphor or as some kind of actual prediction. Ironically, those who attack Trump this way are indulging in the kind of disgust and disinclusion that they seem to want to be able to hate Trump for using."
Fen's Law. Times a million.
"Trump's antics will depress the moderate I'm-no-bigot country-club and suburban married-women vote. "
I know a lot of married women. With children. I'm married to one, in fact. I know them in rural and suburban America. And the married women with children I know absolutely detest Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife.
Maybe the married suburban women without children are different. I don't know ANY of them, though they do exist.
The women I know supporting Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife are (almost) uniformly single women with multiple kids from multiple sperm donors who are married to the state who I'm supporting, leaving me less money for my WIFE and I to spend on OUR children and their future. And some female academics with Ph.Ds who have unfriended me on facebook rather then using their intellectual prowess to try and change my political leanings. Female academics with Ph.Ds seem 100% to be supporters of the woman running for president who stood by and supported her philandering husband and smeared the women who he cheated with as liars, when they weren't. Gotta wonder what their education taught them about human dignity.
My younger daughter recently had a few internet-arranged dates with a young attorney. He was very taken with her but not with her politics [Trump/conservative, while he is Sanders/leftist] and tried to change her mind. She finally told him that her politics are part of who she is and they are not going to change so, if he can't face that fact, they don't need to see each other. They don't.
Is it just my assumption that the left simply can't tolerate anyone who won't fall in line with their views?
I might add that my younger daughter is racially mixed. Of course, he fully expected her to be a liberal.
"Is it just my assumption that the left simply can't tolerate anyone who won't fall in line with their views?"
No.
Gary "Open Borders" Johnson!
Because Mexican nationals beating up American citizens at a political rally is who we are now!
Wait, it's always who we were! One of those founding ideas in our proposition nation.
Being calm as your house burns down might be a sign of some sort of delusion. "Calm" is not a virtue.
I'll let Milton Friedman respond.
We had completely open immigration for over 100 years!
And Gary Johnson, like Friedman, understands that the welfare state is the poison. You can't have this freedom while the government is providing all these goodies.
Brando said:
"Clearly Trump doesn't think so or he wouldn't get so pissed when people like that refuse to support him."
I don't think he's pissed. I think it's a deliberate exercise in goring oxen. People, us people who live outside the beltway, are delighted when the upright and pompous get skewered.
Taken in that light I think his seemingly bizarre success makes more sense.
I don't like the guy, and that goes back 30 years, but I'm beginning to think he's a hell of a lot smarter than he appears. In that respect he bears a strong resemblance to Eisenhower and Reagan.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा