I want to know the ratio between...
1. Those who voted against Trump in 2016 but who want to vote for him in 2020, and...
2. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 but who now support impeachment and removal.
ADDED: The poll you can't possibly take is the poll to catch liars. A big problem with the poll I'm saying I want is that there would be a huge incentive to lie (much more than on the usual poll). If you're guessing the ratio between my categories 1 and 2, then move on to guessing what would happen if a poll really did try to ascertain how many people are in those 2 categories. Then I would want to know the ratio between...
1. The proportion of those who said they were in category 1 but were lying, and...
2. The proportion of those who said they were in category 2 but were lying.
December 3, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
86 comments:
Prediction: the first number would be a lot larger than the second number.
It’s hard to imagine a person willing to give Trump a chance and then being so disappointed by his performance that they want him out not just at the ballot box, but ASAP and by any legal means necessary.
I voted for Trump extremely reluctantly. Really I didn’t vote *for* him so much as against Hillary. All impeachment has done is grind in the impression that a few billionaires who own the media think they own America and deeply resent that the voters have a say.
I had to delete the news feed on my phone twice, the first time it brought it right back the next day with an anti Trump story. I turned on my Roku TV to watch a nice movie, what comes up on the home page? An anti-Trump impeachment story in a little box. Try to watch a football game on Sunday night? There’s Nancy Pelosi in what should have been a paid ad, pumping impeachment.
Fuck. Them. You people who support this kind of brainwashing effort on the part of our billionaire class, what are you thinking?
If it weren’t for the press's one sided coverage of this presidency, he would be headed for a landslide, Twitter feed or no.
2. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 but who now support impeachment and removal.
Just one person, Chuck.
I think moderate Democrat Mickey Kaus is getting pissed off by impeachment too. It doesn’t have to be a huge number to be an important number.
pretty confident, that the definition of set 2 is: The Empty Set
Our Poor Chuck is an alcoholic liar, and he lied about voting for Trump, just like he lied about his being a sexual assaulter
I'm like skylark: I voted against Hillary based on my opinion that she was hugely corrupt (Clinton Foundation) and not competent (riding her husband's coattails). Therefore, I should have been counted among the "persuadable" for a Dem in 2020. But the unrelenting Trump Derangement has turned me against Dems across the board.
10,000:1
How about those who voted for Hillary in 2016 and would do so again in 2020.
How could anyone who was willing to vote for Trump in 2016 think that the Democrats have made the case for impeachment?
“You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.”
I wouldn’t vote for the Democrat party platform regardless of who’s their candidate. Not Hillary. Not Obama. Not Tulsi.
Trump 2020.
Trump is doing a great job.
Impeachment is irrelevant. It's just another attempt to void the 2016 election.
I'll vote for Trump in 2020. Best president since Reagan.
Oddly, I would have voted for Bernie. I would have been wrong, but I didn’t know that at the time. A vote for Hillary was a bridge too far.
Howe many idiots really buy into the snake oil the corrupt left sell on a daily basis?
Don't lie!
Skylark: Fuck. Them. You people who support this kind of brainwashing effort on the part of our billionaire class, what are you thinking?
If the brainwashing works on them, they're thinking that people like you only think what you're thinking because you've been brainwashed by Fox News.
1. Those who voted against Trump in 2016 but who want to vote for him in 2020, and...
2. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 but who now support impeachment and removal.
1. Would you say yes if I asked if you voted against Trump in 2016 but want to vote for him in 2020?
2. Would you say yes if I asked you if you voted for Trump in 2016 but now support his impeachment and removal?
That completely avoids the liar problem.
Impeachment aside, if you voted for Trump in 2016, and won't vote for him in 2020, what criteria did you use to vote for him in the first place?
Those who voted for Trump in 2016 but who now support impeachment and removal.
Just one person, Chuck.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
That's easy. I'd always lie to a pollster and also in any comments I might make about polls, including this one.
I based my answer on prior testimony.
The actual vote showed that a large number of people lie about their support for Trump. I don't think that that proportion is shrinking. I don't believe any polls about Trump. What proportion of men would cheat on their wives with a Playmate of The Year if they could? The actual number is probably higher than the polled answer, particularly if the question were asked in front of the wives.....The media have succeeded in making him appear disreputable which is not the same thing as impeachable. The media regard infidelity (among Republicans) as a sin and cross dressing as a brave act of self realization.
Who the fuck ever asks real people to answer poll questions? I have never heard from them. There are push polls on the telephone the week of the election, but those are Fake Polls. And I want so bad to believe Polls exist, but alas they either do not exist or I do not exist...in some ratio.
The florida gop polled me once in 2006, and never again.
That's easy. I'd always lie to a pollster and also in any comments I might make about polls, including this one.
So, if I had asked you this question yesterday, what would you have told me...
The actual vote showed that a large number of people lie about their support for Trump. I don't think that that proportion is shrinking.
No they didn't. The polls close, most within the margin of error. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college, mostly through slim margins in traditionally blue (but fairly socially conservative) states, and helped considerably by Clinton's completely incompetent campaign strategy (campaigning in Arizona and Texas when Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio were on a knife's edge, WTF)
In 2016, I reluctantly voted for Trump, because I thought Hillary was terrible.
In 2020, I will enthusiastically vote for Trump, because he is great.
Still think the popular vote was closer. Cali is a mess.
First rule of Republican fight club, lie to poll takers.
I'd like to know the ratio of 1. people who voted for Hillary in 2016 and will vote Dem again and 2. people who voted for Hillary and are waiting to "make plans" and "see what happens."
Voting for a Democrat should be listed in the DSM-IV-TR.
gilbar said...
pretty confident, that the definition of set 2 is: The Empty Set
Our Poor Chuck is an alcoholic liar, and he lied about voting for Trump, just like he lied about his being a sexual assaulter
Is this Althouse moderation version 5.0?
I’d be interested in polling the percentage of people who opposed the Clinton impeachment and now oppose the Trump impeachment - the dual members of the dick in mouth and hand on pussy clubs.
Bill Clinton may be in that duality.
There's an important purpose to lying to the pollsters if you're rooting for Trump. We know the Dems are going to commit massive voter fraud and the media will cover for them. They always do. It's important that they underestimate how many fake votes they need to come up with.
Trying to figure out which answer category would hold more liars, I feel a little like the guy in Princess Bride trying to logic his way to which chalice was poisoned.
But here goes:
I think anyone who picked category number 2 (voted for Trump but now support his removal) would be a liar, BUT I think there are very few Trump-haters (the ones who would be tempted to lie about their supposed past support for him) who could even spit those lying words out, because their disgust level for him is so high.
So hat's off to Chuck, I guess.
Qwinn, how cool would it be if Trump wins California by 10 million votes?
My impression is that people who supported Trump in 2016, know the impeachment is a fraud. Its just the Establishment attack on Trump #123, and its been going on since August 2015. I think most people are only half-paying attention. I'd love to see how many people REALLY have switched to Trump since 2016, again I'm skeptical that its a large number.
The R's had better bring their A-game and get the vote out, its going to be a tough fight. Its 50-50 Trump will lose.
#1 would have few liars because that position (against Trump in 2016, now for him) is socially anathema and you get negative points for it.
#2, people saying they were for Trump in 2016 and now oppose him would have a lot of liars seeking social approval, but who haven't really changed.
After 3+ years of relentless agitprop, the "shy Trump voter" phenomenon is probably stronger than it was in 2016.
Trump won the popular vote outside of California in 2016. And the same thing will happen in 2020. That's why the nationwide polls are so misleading. Trump could lose California by 1 vote or 10 million. It doesn't matter which.
As I recall, there was an actual recording of Bill Clinton suborning perjury in a phone call to support the obstruction charge brought by Congress. If such a call existed in the case of Trump, I would support his removal. Clearly Left Bank of the Charles did not support the impeachment of Clinton, despite clear evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. He does however support the removal of Trump without any such evidence.
Funny how it’s "pussy grabbing" with Trump and a consensual blow job with Clinton when in fact Clinton was caught lying in a sexual harassment lawsuit he eventually had to settle.
Trump won the popular vote outside of California in 2016. And the same thing will happen in 2020. That's why the nationwide polls are so misleading. Trump could lose California by 1 vote or 10 million. It doesn't matter which.
Los Angeles County has a higher population than 39 States.
Voting for a Democrat should be listed in the DSM-IV-TR.
It is listed in DSM-V as F60.81 which involves any five of the below:
grandiose sense of self-importance
fantasies of unlimited power
believes she/he is special
requires excessive admiration
sense of entitlement
envious of others
takes advantage of others for own ends
arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
LLR-lefty & Racist Posting #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "Is this Althouse moderation version 5.0?"
LOLOLOLOL
Note: this was posted by a poster who was explicitly banned for being a dishonest, mendacious disruptive lunatic poster.
I guess Soros/Omidyar/Hoffman >>> Althouse Moderation
Field Marshall and Self-annointed Security "expert" Freder Frederson: "The polls close, most within the margin of error. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college,..."
LOL
"...but won the electoral college,...."
Behold, today's left and LLR-left.
Allen: "2. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 but who now support impeachment and removal.
Just one person, Chuck."
There is zero evidence LLR Chuck, the strongest defender of the left on these boards, ever voted for Trump.
Ever.
I agree with Skylark. The MSM is pushing too hard on everything Trump. It's not accomplishing Democrat goals. It's a ratings noon, however, as TDS is a major market hungry for content. Remuneration rules the roost, even for Lefty libtard lunatics.
The question is will Pelosi finger out a way to a happy ending or deliver a stillborn.
Boon not noon
For those who are interested, you don't need to look it up.
F60.81 is also known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Hmmm ...
NB: there's no shred of evidence that Drago didn't secretly vote for Hillary. He obviously hits his fellow LLR boy toy hard to throw the rest of us off his love for bulky white pantsuits.
Howard: "He obviously hits his fellow LLR boy toy hard to throw the rest of us off his love for bulky white pantsuits."
My guess is you've never had an original thought in your life which explains why you are reduced to middle school playground-speak.
Note: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the middle school level playground-speak..........
But keep trying. There's always the "million monkeys banging away on typewriters" possibility for you to come up with something.
So you've got that going for you.
Which is nice.
I kind of agree with Freder this time but the economy is going to increase Trump's national vote.
I am concerned about vote fraud but the fraud in California is not important. I am concerned about it in states like AZ where a test run in 2018 elected Sinema. The states with 100% mail in ballots are all at risk. CA, OR, and WA are not important because they are run by leftists but AZ is at risk. Mark Kelly is a crummy candidate but Martha McSally did not run a good campaign in 2018.
And then there were three. - Rasmussen
Now there are three independent polls that put black support for Donald Trump at 33 -34 %
I think that black people are well aware of what getting railroaded looks like.
I kind of think you should add options for
"Voted against Hillary OR reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016, but enthusiastic in 2020"
and
"Voted reluctantly for Trump in 2016, no change in 2020"
Michael K: "I kind of agree with Freder this time but the economy is going to increase Trump's national vote."
The key dynamic to note from 2016 is not just how much Trump won in the Blue Wall states, but what was the swing from 2012 to Trump 2016 vote in those states.
Trump flipped key counties throughout the midwest and some by more than 30 points. That's a helluva first step setting up expanded Trump vote for 2020, which Trump and his team have worked tirelessly on since day 1 after his win in Nov 2016.
"That national drama was playing out at the county level, too. Places that supported President Obama over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election switched their support to Trump — some with hefty margins. As the data came in last night, we saw a clear trend: In almost every county across the nation, Trump's support was stronger than Romney's four years ago. On the Democrats side, another trend emerged: a lot of counties that voted for Obama in 2012 still voted for Hillary Clinton this time, but with worse margins.
Above is a map just highlighting the counties that switched choices outright in 2016 versus 2012. Vast swaths of the population in the upper Midwest had a change of heart — and a change of parties.
Some of those counties flipped by more than 30 points. Consider Fayette County in Northwest Iowa, which flipped by 32 points. In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 12 points (55.3 - 43.3), but this year, Trump won the same county by almost 20 (56.4 - 37.0)
Michigan was widely regarded as a win for Clinton until just days before the election. But white, blue-collar workers turned out and helped deliver the state for Trump. Just over half of voters in Eaton, Michigan, in the middle of the state, carried Obama to victory there in 2012. On Tuesday, 50 percent went for Trump, flipping the county by 9 points."
One wonders how Trump might have done in the popular vote had he wasted as much time as Hillary did in a state that was never in doubt. He did campaign in New York State in 2016, which kind of surprised me. Elise Stefanik’s district.
Interesting note from LLR Chuck's relatively recent past in assessing his "republican"/"conservative" leanings:
LLR & #StrongDemDefender Chuck literally called the massive republican sweep of the House, Senate and White House and, by extension, the Supreme Court, in 2016 a literal "disaster".
Yep.
"principled conservative" and "lifelong republican" Chuck called republican wins a "disaster", but not to worry, LLR Chuck was positively giddy the day after the election in 2018 when the democrats won the House. LLR Chuck could not control his unbridled joy at the thought of the dems taking control of the House and immediately shutting down all advancement of republican/conservative polices.
So it's not just a matter of who our noted Liar LLR Chuck claims to have voted for, its the full context of everything our big time dem booster has written for years that puts the lie to his claim to have voted republican.
I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I voted for myself. Does that count as "voted against"?
I will vote for Trump in 2020.
I live in a "swing state" (margin of less than 5%, IIRC).
Any poll that you did on this would, as you surmise, be worthless.
I'm sure Our Hostess realizes that this line of thinking leads to an infinite regress of polls (i.e., "those who were lying about whether they were lying in the n-1th poll...).
Separately, what Shouting Thomas said.
You have to watch out for that kind of thing when you're programming because the machine will keep on looping until you turn it off, or it runs out of memory, whichever comes first.
Nice non-denial miss-direction Drago. Lololololololol
Skylark: "One wonders how Trump might have done in the popular vote had he wasted as much time as Hillary did in a state that was never in doubt. He did campaign in New York State in 2016, which kind of surprised me. Elise Stefanik’s district."
Highly targeted for a specific reason.
Similar to Maine Congressional District 2 in a traditionally blue state, which Trump won, taking 1 of 4 electoral votes available in Maine.
Who can forget how the LLR Chuck-beloved MSM and LLR's and dems (but I repeat myself) made fun of Trump for doing that!! Oh how they laughed and laughed and laughed!!
You see, the MSM-ers and their lefty/LLR-lefty minions just knew, they just KNEW how dumb that Orange Man Bad had to be to do such a thing!!
LOLOLOL
So many lefty/LLR-lefty geniuses!!
You win by winning the electoral college, so the "dumb dumb dumb" businessman read the "rule book" and built an entire strategy on winning the.....(wait for it) ......(wait for it)......(wait for it) ............The Electoral College!!!!
Gee, almost like it makes sense or something! s
Trump spent what, 1/4 or 1/3 as much as Hillary and micro-attacked the key counties and precincts with an absolutely masterful data-driven/market-driven/consumer-driven business strategy which......worked!!
But that Trump, he has NO idea what he is doing, does he?
And gee, that Trump sure hasn't been spending anytime since 2016 continuing to target those key areas while expanding his reach into areas where there is sufficient probability for success for 2016....right? LOL
Howard: "Nice non-denial miss-direction Drago."
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Drago's love for Chuck which he dares not speak its name is alas written all over his face. You really need help boy the obsession is bordering on pathological. I think it's time to go back to your self-esteem refresher course
Similar to Maine Congressional District 2 in a traditionally blue state, which Trump won, taking 1 of 4 electoral votes available in Maine.
I kind of thought it was a bank shot. Since he would get Vermont media but with a friendlier crowd, Plattsburgh being in the Burlington TV market, which also reaches into persuadable New Hampshire.
One of the things I liked about Trump was his willingness to go into Vermont where he was hated by many, but not all, as someone who spends a lot of time there, I know.
It's possible there's a set of people who voted for Trump to keep Hillary out of the White House. Assuming Hillary is not on the ballot in 2020, they would have one less reason to vote for Trump. We shall see.
Browndog said...
Impeachment aside, if you voted for Trump in 2016, and won't vote for him in 2020, what criteria did you use to vote for him in the first place?
I'm quite sure there were a bunch of people who found Hillary just too corrupt and worthless to vote for, so held their nonse and voted for Trump.
There's a good chance that in 2020 the Democrat candidate will be worse than Hillary 2016 (Hillary at least didn't want to take away your health insurance, and force you onto Medicare). But This time Trump will need to win those voters.
He's been President for 4 years. He doesn't get the "benefit of the doubt".
Freder Frederson said...
Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio were on a knife's edge, WTF
WTF is right. Trump won Ohio by over 8%
Howard: "Drago's love for Chuck which he dares not speak its name......."
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Assuming Hillary is not on the ballot in 2020, they would have one less reason to vote for Trump. We shall see.”
All they have to do is not be crazy.
Category 1 is very small, but would probably have a higher percentage of liars. There will be some Jews, blacks, hispanics, and anti-socialists swing to Trump, but not admit it. (If it were voted against Trump and against impeachment, the numbers would be much higher)
Category 2 is even smaller than #1. Impeachment isn't being bought by everyone, no matter how hard the sell.
"That's easy. I'd always lie to a pollster and also in any comments I might make about polls, including this one.
"So, if I had asked you this question yesterday, what would you have told me..."
The same as today, except it was different (and I lied both times, and I am lying now).
From Drago's Link....
Some of those counties flipped by more than 30 points. Consider Fayette County in Northwest Iowa,
I didn't know there was another Fayette County on the OTHER side of the state! I thought, MY Fayette County in Northeast Iowa was the only one!
Browndog said...
Impeachment aside, if you voted for Trump in 2016, and won't vote for him in 2020, what criteria did you use to vote for him in the first place?
My criteria for voting for Trump in 2016:
~I expected that Trump would nominate solid Federalist Society-vetted judges. (Expectation largely met; although any Republican president would have done the same.)
~I expected that a Trump Presidency would be somewhat constrained by the human guard rails of at least some competent mainstream Republicans. (Expectation partially met, at first. Now almost completely gone.)
~I hoped (but did not expect) that the Office of the Presidency would round off Trump's roughest edges. (Instead, Trump's sociopathology is even more pronounced.)
~I did not expect any frank lawbreaking by Trump. But that is what we've now seen.
I will not vote for Trump in 2020. I would vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial based on the current evidence.
For the nation, I think that Trump is doing permanent harm to his office, and the Constitutional norms of the federal government.
But for me personally, the Trump damage to the Republican Party is even worse, and needs to end. We had some intellectual and legal heavyweights (Kris Kobach and Hans von Spakovsky come immediately to mind on voting and election law) who threw in with Trump and whose reputations have suffered permanent harm as a result. we've lost important swing Congressional districts and some important state houses. We lost the U.S. House of Representatives, and might now lose the Senate in 2020. A normal Republican administration would have ridden these years of peace and prosperity to easy wins in the 2018 midterms and 2020 general. With Trump, and Trumpian candidates, we are losing the suburbs. And even Alabama's senate seat. Alabama! What's next? Texas? Georgia? Wisconsin/Maine/Colorado/North Carolina?
"I want to know the ratio between..."
What you really want to know is, will Trump be re-elected? But polls failed in 2016 because a significant number who voted for Trump were not willing to publicly say they were going to do so, even to a pollster, and it seems unlikely that effect has diminished.
In any case, Trump's chances depend not only on the numbers in each of these categories but on turnout. Turnout for whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be higher than turnout was for Clinton in 2016 in part because she was a horrid candidate, but also because few in 2016 thought she could lose. Democratic partisans won't make that mistake again; therefore, Trump will have to substantially exceed his 2016 vote totals in 2020 if he's to win.
In any case, in this (or almost any other election), handicapping the race quickly becomes boring. Just as it becomes boring to stay up half the night watching the vote count and listening to speculative babble about what this-or-that means, when one can just go to sleep and find out next morning.
(Although it may have been worth it to stay up on the night Scott Walker defeated the recall just to hear NPR announce the results in those deep my-dog-just-died voices of woe.)
I don’t think the polls were necessarily wrong in 2016, I think that the interpretation of them was wrong, and continues wrong to this day. There is talk of Trumps “razor thin” margin in this state or that being the difference, but if you believe that, you don’t understand statistics. There was a slice of the population that supported Trump even in states where he lost that was very similar to those people in states that he won.
Here the best way I can think of to explain it. Suppose you have a puddle with a large fish in it, the depth of the water is the blue vote, and the size of the fish is the red vote and that puddle stretches across multitple states. Those states where the fish shows above the water would be the Trump states, and those states where the fish is submerged would be the Clinton states. You can’t say that because you only see a small part of the fish, that the fish is small. It’s large, and there are a lot of votes that would need to change to change the size of the fish. This idea that Democrats could have somehow changed 100K votes and flipped the election is fantasy. Fantasy of people who don’t understand math. They would have had to change many more minds than just 100K.
Another point on this same theme was margin of error and the odds that a state would flip to Trump or Clinton. The states are not separate “experiments” if there is a national wind, it affects all of the races. That was the mistake that was made that led to the mortgage crisis. They took the assumption that mortage markets were not national, and then applied a national forcing on those prices through mortgage policy, and were shocked when all of the local markets reacted in the same way to this national forcing.
I think the liar problem is much bigger than is generally known. A Trump supporter, at this point in polling history, is likely to just not respond, but when they do lie, I suspect they lie to avoid conflict, which is the same motive for not responding in the first place.
I suspect that the anti-Trumpers would probably be significantly over-represented in the liar category in Althouse's hypothetical question simply because of the media environment. The liars in this case would be swimming with the current, while liars on the opposite side would be swimming against it.
Here’s the dilemma for the Democrats:
1. At this point no one who voted FOR Trump is going to vote against him. I postulate that they knew what they could expect and haven’t been surprised. (Trump gains nothing, Democrats lose nothing.)
2. Voters who voted FOR Hillary (because they actually liked her) will vote for any Democrat over Trump. (Trump loses nothing, Democrats gain nothing.)
3. Some voters who were afraid of a Trump Presidency and voted FOR Hillary (out of fear) will vote FOR Trump this time because his policies haven’t hurt them and possible helped them. (Net gain for Trump, net loss for Democrats.)
4. Some voters who voted AGAINST Hillary but not FOR Trump (third party, write-ins, blank boxes) will vote FOR Trump this time. (Net gain for Trump, net loss for Democrats.)
If that’s correct, the Democrats must find voters who didn’t vote in 2016 and who will vote FOR their candidate because those voters are either:
A. Motivated by the Democratic candiate’s positions OR
B. Motivated by fear and/or loathing of Trump.
None of the top-tier Democratic candidates are barn-burners, motivationally. (Bernie, maybe, but I think his ship has sailed.) A Biden candidacy might dampen the effect of point 4 above, but I don’t think that’s enough to tilt things to Team D. Plus Biden just has to suck the wrong person’s finger and that pretty much kills his chance. And who would bet against that?
That’s why the Impeachment Gambit had to move the needle hard against Trump. Impeachment was never going to happen, but as a way to motivate the anti-Trump vote it might have been useful. But the needle didn’t move much, and what movement has happened so far has favored Trump.
"I don’t think the polls were necessarily wrong in 2016"
No, the polls were all wrong, Skylark. Much has been made about how the national polls were well within the margin of error, and Clinton did win the popular vote. However, what really happened was the that the national polls were accidentally accurate. If they had been really, truthfully accurate, any number of them would have picked up on the fact that Clinton's margin in the polls was dangerously concentrated with regards to winning the electoral college, but none of them picked this up (or, if they did, they buried that fact). Indeed, in the state level polling, all the polls showed Clinton winning the states that actually cost her the election- WI, PA, MI; and the state level polls that had Trump winning the states he did win underestimated his margin in race after race.
Chuck said...
My criteria for voting for Trump in 2016:
...
~I did not expect any frank lawbreaking by Trump. But that is what we've now seen..."
I keep seeing the one deranged anti-Trumper liberal Facebook friend of mine screaming the same thing about lawbreaking Trump.
But he can't define the laws he broke, but keeps screaming about "Obstruction of justice!"
What lawbreaking? And from what first hand evidence? Not "I heard", "Everyone Knew", or any of the other nonsense that's been paraded as evidence that isn't.
Trump saved the republican party from all the establishment GOPe types who have thrown in with the dems.
Did you know LLR Chuck's hero David Frum is pro-abortion, pro-open borders, pro-endless wars, against the wall etc etc etc.
He is literally for the entirety of the democrat agenda.
All of it.
Just like George Will and Bill Kristol and Max Boot and Tom Nichols and the entire Pantheon of LLR Chuck "conservative" (snort) heroes.
And every single one of them has publicly endorsed not only the entire democrat agenda but every single democrat lunatic candidate.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
"Conserving conservatism" by adopting the entire democrat agenda and electing dems at all levels for the next 20 years just to "own" Trump.
LOLOLOLOL
Uh, upon deep and lengthy reflection, I........choose to go another way!
No LLR Chuck.
You aren't fooling anyone any longer.
The jig is up and those puzzle pieces of a pre-Trump exposed GOPe are never going to put back together again.
Trump has 90+ republican base voters at his back and independents are swinging our way where we need them to.
What do you have?
What you've always had...your beloved "brilliant" "competent" "magnificent" "professional" dems and lefties to hang with.
Just take a look at your hero Max Boot. He's really having a good time with all his lefty pals now, isn't he?
LOL
At least Max isn't pretending any longer. Food for thought FakeCon Chuck. Food for thought.
And the biggest "tell" that LLR Chuck, like all his buddies, was never conservative, is that he has thrown in completely with the entire Lawfare weaponization of govt against republicans that the far left dems began in the 1980's against Reagan when they first attempted to make illegal policy differences.
The fact that LLR Chuck has been linking like a little madman to the worst of the worst far left lefties at Lawfareblog and Ben Wittes and that entire crew and is now vomiting up the same BS that Adam Schiff is peddling would not be possible if there was a single conservative molecule in his body.
There isn't, obviously, and there never was.
I did not vote for Trump, but I expect to vote for him in 2020. Nothing I have read or heard reaches to the level of demanding impeachment. I hope he wins the popular vote and gains the electoral votes of those states that did away with their constitutional electoral college votes. They did it for anti-Trump reasons and deserve a slapdown.
The democrats are wanting to impeach Donald Trump because they think the Ukrainian conversation was for his political gain, but the democrats are trying to impeach him for their own political gain. They want a democrat in the White House and that is the only reason for impeachment. I also believe if the democrats would get their heads out of their butts and work with all parties, our United States would be united instead of divided as they keep mentioning. It's not Trump dividing our country, it's the democrats trying to impeach our President.
Post a Comment