PatD,

Did you comprehend my comment about a trump – hrc debate? Did I call trump corrupt? No I did not, nor does anyone need to because he has admitted he has engaged in crony capitalism. Look it up yourself.

Rolled grenades, really? Do you honestly think the rolled grenades changed minds of the LIVs or the never vote for a republican crowd to suddenly realize the donald is the messiah the country needs to step into the boots of the current messiah? Do you want another messiah wannabe? If so, you and others like you are a danger to the idea that we must return to the concept that a republic is all that protects us, you included, from mob rule.

Agreed that it’s too early for national polling to be a reliable indicator. (I’m not sure when it does become a reliable indicator, if ever 🙂 .)

But, as I’ve said, it’s all we’ve got, and it indicates trends so far.

I think I understand what you are saying and you are correct, but I am saying I don’t think those polls mean a lot today. Until folks are faced with 2 and only 2 people to pick from it’s hard to truly predict how they will react.

As a matter of fact; I’m not sure who I would vote for if face with Hillary vs. The Donald. Right now my guess is I would write in someone else (maybe neo-neocon!), but a few debates or events leading up to November may alter that.

There are certainly folks who like Bernie and don’t think they like Trump who may switch to Trump rather than Hillary. There are also certainly Republicans who say they could never vote for Trump who will, if give no other option. And, unfortunately, there are plenty of people who haven’t watched a debate and can’t name more than one candidate, if they can even do that.

I don’t disagree that you are accurately citing polling data, and I don’t disagree that the polls you’re using are proper polls. My point is it’s too early for national polling to be a reliable predictor.

You ask who else but Trump has called Hillary a liar (except Fiorina, whom you discount because she’s not doing well) and who else but Trump has said he will destroy ISIS?

As often happens, you are crediting Trump as being the only person who says what many are actually saying. I’ve noticed that over and over; because Trump gets the publicity and the others don’t.

Here are a few examples:

Rubio calls Hillary a liar (see also this). Cruz did, as well.

Cruz said he’d “utterly destroy ISIS.” Rubio talks about destroying it as well (see also this), as does Christie, unequivocally.

Same for lots of other topics (immigration, for example); I don’t want to take up more time demonstrating that, but elsewhere I’ve done so.

The above are just a few statements I found by Googling for a few moments. It’s not hard to find, if a person is interested in looking. But it’s been my observation that most Trump supporters are not interested in looking. Trump gets the publicity, they hear what he says, and they discount the others without wanting to learn the truth.

When challenged, Trump supporters say, “Well, Trump says it tougher than the others!” Or, “Well, Trump will do it and they won’t.” All just faith in him, for no reason that I can see. It’s like saying someone will win a boxing match just because that person does a lot of trash talking about how strong he is.

Trump is a businessman who has built buildings. I hate to break it to everyone, but that’s a bit different from the government building a wall on the Mexican border. Just because he equates the private sector and the public doesn’t mean the two are equated. By the way, about building the wall, I’ve written this post on what some of the difficulties are. It includes some links to articles that are well worth reading.

Remember “It’s the economy, stupid”? Who has been talking more about jobs? More about trade? More about jobs leaving the US? More about immigration?

Who else has said more clearly and directly, “I will destroy ISIS?” No equivocation, no conditions. “They will be gone.” The Iranians? “Worst deal in history. We didn’t even get our prisoners back!” The military? “We will have the strongest military in the world. Period.”

And much more importantly, Trump is a doer. He has actually done things, built buildings, businesses, brands. People know this. He’s not a lawyer — BTW, people hate lawyers — he’s not a first-term senator. As he put it in the first debate, when somebody (I forget who) asked him, “How are you going to build a wall?”, Trump looked him right in the eye and with an expression that said ‘how stupid could you possibly be?’ and replied, “I’m a builder.”

Is Trump brash, arrogant, conceited, narcissistic, not fully informed on many issues, probably not a social conservative? Yes. Would I prefer another candidate? Several. But beating Hillary is the most important thing, and I’m increasingly thinking he’s the guy to do it.

You ask me to “name a Presidential election since Nixon-Kennedy where the most telegenic candidate lost.”

I’ll take up that challenge: Nixon, 1968, versus Humphrey. Now, neither were what you would call “telegenic.” But Nixon was worse than Humphrey.

Nixon, 1972. McGovern was much more telegenic. I was there.

Carter, 1976. Carter won over Ford. Neither was particularly telegenic, but Carter was always a bit goofy-looking, and Ford looked like a regulation guy.

Bush, 2000. This one was somewhat of a tossup, but at the time Gore was quite good-looking, and I though he was more telegenic (and articulate) than Bush. Of course, the election was very close.

Obama, 2012. Romney is one of the most handsome men on the planet, particularly for his age. I’ve seen him in person, and I know.

Now, you can define “telegenic” in some idiosyncratic way so that none of the above fits your definition. But I submit that by the usual definition, these are exceptions to your rule, and there are many of these exceptions, so many that I don’t think it’s a rule. But to my way of thinking and perceiving, those are cases where people who came across better on TV (more attractive, appealing, etc.) lost.

In addition, I question the idea that Trump is more telegenic than Hillary. To her supporters, Hillary comes across as forceful, strong, articulate, and attractive for an older woman. Not so to those who don’t like her. To his supporters, Trump comes across as funny, incisive, strong. He is no more physically attractive than she is, although both were good-looking when young (neither is young anymore). To his detractors, he’s a comical figure, full of bluster and bombast and meandering in his words, as well as insulting and crass.

I’ll try to make it crystal clear.

Trump’s supporters keep saying he’s the Republican who can beat Hillary; the others can’t. They also say that he’s the Republican who appeals more to Democrats and/or black voters; the others don’t or won’t.

No national poll reflects those things about Trump vis-a-vis the OTHER Republican candidates. So when you write :

Can you take any election where an incumbent was not running, nor his VP, and a candidate was polling above 40% in January? I mean no offense, but your reliance on national polling across parties at this point in the process has no basis in history.

… you are comparing apples to oranges.

One more clarification: I am not comparing Trump to previous candidates in previous elections. I am comparing his measured appeal to Democrats and black voters in national polls NOW to the measured appeal of the other leading GOP candidates in those same polls. Those polls show no advantage for Trump of the sort that his followers keep asserting. In fact, they show the opposite.

Therefore the assertions of his followers at this point are just a wing and a prayer. They keep saying it, but there is no foundation for it. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen over time; I simply have no idea, nor do they. But right now the evidence is against it, not for it.

That said, I see no reason to think that Trump would be anything but a terrible president, much like Obama: a self-obsessed narcissist who wouldn’t dream of listening to people who know more than he does, and who will do as he pleases with disregard to law or populace, when he can get away with it. They differ in temperament – Trump is a walking gaffe, a bigmouthed bombast, while Obama is a slimy liar – but their main difference I suspect is that Trump lacks any defining direction, goals or plans while Obama seems to have consistent pro-muslim, anti-West, stick-it-to-ordinary-Americans vision that he has pursued diligently throughout his terms. Trump switches up shallow talking points but has no vision or plan; just a giant ego that thinks he can magically make things happen because he’s Trump; or thinks that enough voters believe it to make him president.

Trump looks like he would be a scattershot executive with a couple of a talking points but no real plans, who will force through poorly executed ideas. Because a grade school child has more experience being a student than he has being a Republican, I have no faith that he even has conservative views. He’s simply inflaming an angry crowd. The only thing he can possibly accomplish is to wreck things, which will make the “burn it down” people happy until they realize that what grows in its place is not going to be the republic they dream of.

Basically, my honest appraisal is that if Trump gets elected, he will be the last GOP president for a while – he will ruin the brand just as Obama should have ruined the Democrat brand for a generation with his staggering incompetence. But the media will not lie for and cover Trump, as they protect Obama. He will be tarred and feathered with his bad ideas and bad outcomes.

I still suspect he’s in the race for two reasons: 1) narcissism and 2) disrupting the GOP proceedings to set up the show for his pal Hilary, at a time when the Dems are very weak – but since he’s so self-centered I have no doubt he would shrug off #2 and go on with it if things continue to go well.

I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see the Trump situation going well. The only thing he brings to the table is chaos and disruption.

As much as I want to believe I live in a country where my peers understand the Constitution; concepts of freedom and liberty and take their duty to elect Representatives seriously that is simply not true for tens of millions of American voters.

Hillary Clinton is not telegenic. The Democrats are trying to hide her. The put their debates on Saturday nights, opposite sporting events that half the country is watching.

To those of you obsessing about the candidates’ debate skills; you are correct, Trump is awful in televised debates and most all the candidates do better than him in the technicalities of debating. The only problem is, Trump’s numbers go up after each one.

Why? He’s a bombastic loud-mouth talking tough talk on TV.

People want a winner who has their back in the White House. Does Ted Cruz look like a winner? Rand Paul? How would either one look next to Putin?

I know, I know; Cruz and Paul are smarter than Trump and they know the Constitution 1,000 times better than Trump ever will, but, unfortunately (very unfortunately) millions of voters don’t even pay attention to that.

And, neo-neocon, many of those voters voted for the Democrat in the last two election cycles.