The hype about how Trump could win: what are the facts?
Now, don’t get me wrong. Maybe Trump could win the election against Hillary. In fact, maybe any of the candidates could, if she gets weak enough.
So I’m not doubting the possibility of it. But I doubt the motives of the NY Times or Politico or other left-leaning periodicals when they continue to say he will do well against Clinton, in the absence of evidence that he would do any better against her than other Republican candidates, and the presence of evidence that he would actually do worse against her than they would.
It’s also curious to me that none of these articles seem to actually analyze the polls to come to their conclusions. I have looked at the polls, and continue to do so, and have come to the conclusion that, at least so far, they indicate that Trump would be the weakest candidate of the GOP frontrunners in a head-to-head against Clinton.
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t change—it most definitely could. But so far it hasn’t. Everything else is speculation.
So here’s the latest from Politico on the subject. The author asserts that Trump would do well with blacks; I’ve seen that said before, but I’ve never seen a poll that indicates Trump does better than the other GOP candidates with black voters in a one-on-one contest with Hillary. Wouldn’t you want to see that evidence in order to believe that it’s true? I would. After all, there’s no reason it couldn’t be true. If I had to guess, without looking at any polls, I’d say it certainly might be true.
But what’s true is that, although I’ve looked at many polls, I’ve not found one that supports it. Notice also that the Politico article on how Trump could win (entitled “How Trump Defeats Hillary Clinton”) talks about how Trump might or could defeat Clinton, according to his supporters and to “Republican pollsters,” but doesn’t link to any polls that show it or that show his support from blacks. The most you read there about it is that Frank Luntz says he’s talked to some black people who voted for Obama and who say they would consider voting for Trump. How many? What percentage? How many of them said they would consider voting for the other Republicans? Crickets.
And despite the fact that opinions are all the article cites to support the idea, the article’s lede goes like this:
If Donald Trump becomes the next president of the United States, there will be plenty of surprises along the way. One of the biggest will be the help he gets from black voters.
According to Republican pollsters and Trump’s allies, the GOP poll-leader ”” who has been dogged by accusations of racism, most recently for tweeting out a chart that exaggerated the share of murders committed by blacks ”” is poised to out-perform with this demographic group in a general-election matchup with Hillary Clinton.
I can’t escape the idea that the liberal/left press is pushing a Donald Trump candidacy because they feel he’s actually the weakest candidate.
As far as polls that actually attempt to measure the amount of black support for the various candidates go, I recently analyzed the numbers here:
If you look closely at questions 22-25 in that poll, which was taken January 4-7 and involved a sample of 1006 respondents queried by telephone (cell and landline), you will see that Trump does slightly worse against Hillary among Democrats and among black voters than the other leading GOP candidates do. Take a look if you don’t believe me””and these are typical of results I’ve seen in earlier polls.
In a matchup against Hillary, Cruz gets 11% of those identifying as Democrats, whereas Hillary gets 6% of people who say they are Republicans. Rubio gets 12% of Democrats against Hillary’s 5% of Republicans, a trifle better. Bush (remember him?) gets 10% of Democrats to Hillary’s 7% of Republicans, a tiny bit worse. And Trump gets 9% of Democrats to Hillary’s 8% of Republicans, which is a bit worse, although they all cluster rather closely together and the differences are not so very significant.
Against Hillary, Cruz gets 5% of the black vote, but Rubio gets 9% of the black vote. Could be significant, I suppose. Bush gets 6% of the black vote against her. And Trump? 4% of the black vote. Again””except perhaps for Rubio””they all are very similar, but Trump does slightly worse.
Most polls don’t break the support of each candidate down by race, which is what enables people to speculate airily on the subject. But some polls do, and that’s what they say.
The most recent national poll available doesn’t have a breakdown that measures black support for each GOP candidate, either. But it does have head-to-head numbers for the GOP lead candidates against Clinton. The news for Trump there certainly contradicts the Politico piece and all the hype—because once again Trump does very poorly against her (the questions were asked by NBC/WSJ between January 9-13).
In a matchup against Clinton, here’s how the candidates do. I’ve reported the Clinton figure first in each case:
Clinton/Trump 51/41
Clinton/Rubio 47/46
Clinton/Cruz 49/45
This is consistent with every single poll I’ve seen during the last few months. Sometimes all the Republicans win, sometimes they all lose (except Rubio, who consistently beats her). But Trump always does the worst. Now it’s possible there’s some poll I haven’t seen, but I’ve been following this fairly closely for a long, long time, and the trends are extremely clear. One poll or another tends not to tell the whole story, but the average tells you a lot more, although nothing’s infallible.
That NBC/WSJ poll had some other interesting figures, too. In the same poll, Sanders beats Trump 54/39 (the pollsters didn’t ask about Sanders versus the other candidates; at least, I didn’t see any questions about it.). Also, respondents who were likely to vote in the GOP primary were asked about 2-person battles within the primary. If the only choice were Trump vs. Rubio, Trump would win the primary 52 to Rubio’s 45. That seems to reflect the conservative distaste for Rubio, although Rubio polls best against Clinton. But if the two-person primary race were Trump versus Cruz, Cruz would beat Trump 51 to Trump’s 43. That indicate that, if people were to drop out of the race (if they ever manage to do so), Cruz would probably get the nomination, if this poll is accurate and trends remained the same.
I haven’t noticed any newspaper highlighting that finding. I wonder why (that’s sarcasm, by the way).
I have noticed a recent (last 30 days or so) shift in the reporting on Trump on various news channels. Trump is now not as kooky and crazy as they once portrayed him. I don’t think it is because they think he could be easily defeated by Clinton. My guess is, they realize he could be the nominee, so they need to stop the constant targeting and negative press, b/c they will need him to do interviews and appearances on their networks. Trump is not going away, so they will have to deal with him. I think it is nothing more than that.
A Republican candidate would not have to win the majority of the black vote, only a higher percentage than normal to make an impact on the election. Trump can do that. More so than Cruz. Why? Because of his tv popularity. He has some reality tv ‘cool’ factor. But he also resonates with the black community when it comes to immigration. Their community has been impacted negatively the most by Obama’s immigration policies and Hillary’s support of those policies.
Guess we’ll see…the primaries will tell us if Trump will get his chance to prove that theory or not.
Slightly off topic but on the subject of polls.
The first article was in today’s Daily Telegraph reporting on an academic study into how and why pollsters got the recent UK election so wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12108096/The-election-polls-werent-wrong-because-of-mistakes-pollsters-deliberately-cheated.html
In that article there is a link to a previous NYT article on the problems of lack of transparency in US polls and it points to specific PPP and Pew presidential polls as evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/pollings-secrecy-problem.html?_r=1
K-E:
The MSM has no problem going after a potential nominee they fear, whether they want him to grant them interviews or not. The press wants Trump to be the nominee, I am convinced of it.
The press has a history of doing that, and of attacking that person later. McCain is a good example.
Do you think the MSM doesn’t look at those polls against Clinton? Do you think they don’t see that Trump is the weakest candidate? They’re not dumb. They want him to be nominated.
Again, I feel pretty strongly that Rubio is our best candidate to win the general election. I also think that with a strongly conservative senate and congress, any liberal tendencies he might have would be kept in check. I must say though, that if memory serves me, Rubio was the original Tea Party candidate when he beat Charlie Crist for senate in 2010. I think he’s got the best chance of catching some cross-over Democrats, and getting the win. I think every politician in the race has some votes or legislation that they’ve supported that doesn’t line up with the conservative “perfect candidate”. I think Cruz lacks a likability factor, and his hyper-religiosity offends many in the middle. While I am a spiritual person, and believe in God, keep the religion out of politics. Preach it in church, on Sunday. Same goes for the anti-gay, anti-abortion stuff. I’m highly opposed to abortion, but I don’t care who someone’s having sex with. Those two positions lose us elections. When we lose elections, “There are consequences” like a lawless president who uses executive orders to do whatever the hell he wants. On immigration, we don’t need fences, we just need a law that states that any business caught with illegal immigrants in their employ will suffer debilitating fines. If they can’t find jobs here, they won’t come, and the ones here will leave. I also advocate the withholding of any and all services, including education, in state tuition, and driver’s licenses. I will not vote for Trump in the general election. A man of Trump’s constitution, at the head of the most powerful country and military in the world, is the only think that I can think of that would be worse than a Hilary Clinton presidency. (And that’s sayin’ somthin!)
MSM tried to attack him already, and it didn’t work. So what was their angle then? Just curious.
Examples:
1) Claiming he was a racist after his first remark about illegal immigrants.
2) Reporting with glee that Univision kicked his Miss Universe pageant off of their channel.
3) Claiming he was an Islamophobe after his comment about letting Muslims into the country.
4) Repeatedly talking about his company’s bankruptices.
5) Attempting to get him labeled a ‘rapist’ after finding a comment his ex-wife made during divorce proceedings.
6) The news item about his father’s will and withholding medical aid to a newborn.
That’s just what I came up with off the top of my head. If the press *really* wanted him to be the candidate, they wouldn’t have pushed these issues so hard. In fact, those issues still resonate with many who think Trump is crazy and a fascist…so those items are not going away.
I think the press now sees he is not losing ground, they realize he might just be the candidate, so now they are treating him differently. I’m still expecting more. However, most of Trump’s personal and business life have been out there for public consumption for decades. Deals, business failures, marital problems, etc.
Trying to figure out how Hillary could possibly win with her looming indictment. If no indictment, then corruption will swirl around. Get a hold of a few ‘lesser’ individuals who were prosecuted for similar crimes with classified material and trot them out there. Already Trump brought out the Bill bashing he would do…and it worked. Suddenly Bill’s history with women is in the news. Suddenly, Hillary’s poll numbers are dropping. I’m not even sure she’ll win the nomination.
Tom:
I completely agree that Rubio is the strongest candidate in the general. In fact, I think he would win, hands down.
The problem is: can he be nominated?
I also agree that he’s conservative enough, especially if Congress stays in GOP hands.
K-E:
Back then they thought he was a joke and couldn’t possibly win the nomination, so their “angle” was just to discredit the Republican Party for even entertaining his candidacy for a moment. In other words, to mock Republicans.
Mission accomplished. In that most recent poll, although I didn’t write about it in the post, one of the other findings was that the current campaign has convinced a lot of people to think less of the Republican Party—much less than of the Democratic Party. It didn’t go into the reasons, but my guess (because the question was asked of both Democrats and Republicans) is that Trump’s candidacy was part of this.
But at the beginning, the MSM didn’t think Trump had a chance at the nomination and they said so. Now, suddenly, because they see he DOES have a chance, they’re talking it up because they want to help his nomination.
Then they’ll go back to trashing him again.
To me it seems obvious why the msm would want the donald as the nominee. He is celebrity with a large fan base to boost ratings and he is presently the weakest candidate in the general election. A ‘twofer’.
Let’s not ascribe too much to the media. Trump is drawing big crowds wherever he goes. Trump has done consistently well in the polls for the primary. Trump is popular because of his opposition to immigrants and Muslims. The media has no control over any of that, and has tried to attack him on the latter.
Until the nominees are chosen it’s all speculation, including the polls. Even then, events can swing the election.
Yes, many on the left probably do want Trump as the republican nominee but that indicates a serious underestimation on their part as to just how angry the majority of Americans are, not surprising given the elite bubble within which they reside.
All Trump has to do to attract black votes is point to the facts on illegal immigration and jobs in America. Then point out that blacks are the most harmed by that reality.
Then point to all the American companies that are firing American workers while importing foreign workers at lower wages.
Finally pointing out that this has happened under a democrat administration and that Hillary is promising more of the same…
“Rubio is our best candidate to win the general election. I also think that with a strongly conservative senate and congress, any liberal tendencies he might have would be kept in check.” Tom
A strongly conservative senate and congress? That would be the Congress led by McConnell and Ryan?
“I also agree that he’s conservative enough, especially if Congress stays in GOP hands.” neo
Such optimism! History indicates that we are doomed to a level of disappointment not yet experienced. That is because of the indications that the GOP has begun the process which will replace its conservative base with the Hispanic vote. Count on it, a President Rubio, supported by Ryan and McConnell will grant amnesty and citizenship to every illegal alien. And at that point, the war would be lost.
What can I say?
I ditto your opinion.
My take is that Clinton is ONLY prepared to defeat Trump.
He’s been on top — and the research for dirt has been gratifying.
HRC FREAKED when it became apparent that Ted Cruz is quite likely to be the nominee.
He’s the fall back candidate for so many that as the field narrows, his support will ramp up… fast.
The thought of a debate with Cruz — gives HRC headaches.
Geoffrey, Congress has much more influence on policy and legislation than the president does. That is why Obama has chosen to go the executive order route. He could not get his radical agenda past congress. Now think about the paranoid bullshit you’re spouting. You honestly believe that 535 Americans from different parts of the country could agree to an amnesty plan? I also recently read that a Ryan led congress passed an Obamacare repeal, which was then passed by the McConnell led senate, and sent to the President, where is was predictably vetoed. There is a vote to override the veto in the next week or two, which predictably will fail. Let me ask what you’d like of Speaker Ryan, and Leader McConnell?
Polls? Can anyone with any sense take them seriously?
Check out Breitbart for the latest on HRC and Emailgate. She should go to prison. Having worked in the secure world, if I had done 1/10th of what she has I or anybody else would be UNDER Leavenworth.
If the Beast of Chappaqua does not go to prison you can KNOW the rule of law is done in the US.
As a followup to what I’ve written here, I’m from the purplest of purple states…Colorado. I’m a native, and have lived here all of my 54 years, except for a 3 year hitch in the Army. I know a lot of people here, most aren’t Colorado natives. I’ve yet to hear a SINGLE Democrat, or supposed “Independent” say that they will cross over to vote for Trump. The centrists, and the so called “Reagan Democrats” hate the the guy. Today I was talking to a friend of mine who’s husband voted for Obama in both of the last Presidential elections. He does not like Hilary, and isn’t planning on voting for her, but you know who he would vote for? Rubio.
He also won’t vote for Cruz. Now, as far as things go, I love Teddy Cruz. He’s an intelligent fire breathing constitutional conservative that speaks to my heart and soul. He stands solidly for what he believes in, and he doesn’t pull punches. I have a man crush on him. I’m gonna tell you something, he’s not electable. I truly wish he was. My Mom and Dad, who sometimes make me look like a Democrat, hate him. So do the Reagan Democrats. He’s seen as divisive, and his speech and tone make people feel like he’s talking down to them. He has an annoying nasally voice, and a “melty face”. (Someone else’s description, not mine)
I like Fiorina a lot more than I like Rubio, but she has an HP anchor around her neck. Presidential elections are about charisma, and charm, not about policy, or wonky numbers. Obama wins because he projects cool, with his iPhone, and his playlists and his lofty speeches. This is a popularity contest. You need to have the prettiest most charismatic candidate you can get out there. That’s Marco Rubio.
R Daneel
Many politicians get away with doing things that would get regular people imprisoned. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama and now Clinton II. All get away with the worst. This is not a left / right, Democratic / Republican thing. It’s a political power elite thing.
That said, the idea that Trump would somehow be different is a joke. It’s possible he would be worse because he wants to run the country like a business.
Also, the truth about Trump and the media is they hate his politics and his personal opinions but they love the ratings he brings in when they cover him.
Most on the left [including me] want him to be the nominee because it gives Hillary a better chance to win. Trump doesn’t seem normal and he puts his foot in his mouth often. The only reason it doesn’t seem to hurt him is because the polling date is centered around Republicans and those who vote in primaries for Republicans. For everyone else he digs himself into a hole. Rubio would be a better challenge to Clinton. Cruz would not.
MDL:
“Many politicians get away with doing things that would get regular people imprisoned. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama and now Clinton II. All get away with the worst.”
What “worst” has each President gotten away with that would have gotten regular people imprisoned?
Tom:
I must say that your experience accords exactly with mine. I have met no Democrats who would even consider Trump. I know of several who are somewhat interested in Rubio and think they could vote for him. Cruz? No one mentions him, but then again I don’t live among many evangelicals or conservatives.
Those who think Democrats will vote for Trump are living in an MSM-induced and Trump-induced dreamworld.
What if Trump were to pick a solid establishment Republican – say Romney – to be his VP running mate?
R Daneel:
I’ve written a lot about polls. They are hardly infallible, but they have fairly good predictive power when taken as a whole (averages of polls, that is) and over time (trends). They are quite valid most of the time if you look at them that way.
All of the polls (averages) over time (trends) have put Trump last among the GOP leaders when he goes against Hillary. That is a fact. Everyone who says “Trump will do well against Hillary” is using imagination rather than any facts at all. The idea that he will is based on nothing. It might even be true, but no one has a clue. Polls are imperfect, but they give people a clue. That’s the difference.
I don’t think Hillary will be indicted. I think she will win the nomination, no matter what she is guilty of. But if it ends up being Sanders or Biden, I think either of them would poll just as well against Trump.
Based on my informal polling of acquaintance conservatives – I echo the group when I say, “I wish it could be Cruz; Rubio is better than anyone else; and if it comes down to it, I’ll vote for Trump before giving the Democrat candidate a free, unanswered vote.”
If Bernie Sanders wins, I may actually consider selling everything I own and leaving the country. I’m actually not joking – I see a Sanders victory as something with such dire consequences for anyone who isn’t ruined yet that one might regret not getting out before it’s too late.
Neo:
“Those who think Democrats will vote for Trump are living in an MSM-induced and Trump-induced dreamworld.”
The notion is just activist gameplay by the alt-Right for now.
The kernel of plausibility is that Trump, unlike other Republican candidates, is a salesman who can change up his pitch. Also significant, unlike other Republican candidates, his core constituency is activist. Spectating upstart Marxist-method alt-Right activists competing head-on with the veteran Marxist-method Left activist movement would be interesting.
I don’t predict that those differences would offset his shortcomings, but he is playing a different game so that usual prediction is thrown out of whack.
This makes a difference for me:
http://www.cotwa.info/2016/01/cotwa-endorses-sen-marco-rubio-for.html
Kyndyll G.: “If Bernie Sanders wins, I may actually consider selling everything I own and leaving the country.”
And where will you go? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tom,
‘Geoffrey, Congress has much more influence on policy and legislation than the president does.”
Point to one peace of legislation that Congress has passed over Obama’s veto. So much for Congress’ ‘influence’.
“That is why Obama has chosen to go the executive order route. He could not get his radical agenda past congress.”
The Omnibus bill gave Obama more than he asked for, he’s flooding future democrat voters into the country, laying the demographic foundations for a one-party state, fomenting heretofore unseen racial divisions, severely weakened our military, infiltrated it with political correctness and he’s gutted America’s global influence.
Given that when he had an unassailable Congressional majority, he only passed Obamacare, he can’t be that concerned with passage of his radical agenda.
[Do] “You honestly believe that 535 Americans from different parts of the country could agree to an amnesty plan?”
First, to pass what in effect would be amnesty, euphemistically called a “path to citizenship”, Rubio would only need a majority, which along with a RINO led Congress, the democrats would happily provide. Ryan, McConnell and the GOP majority leadership have repeatedly stated their support for an immigration reform bill. aka amnesty.
“I also recently read that a Ryan led congress passed an Obamacare repeal, which was then passed by the McConnell led senate, and sent to the President, where is was predictably vetoed. There is a vote to override the veto in the next week or two, which predictably will fail.”
Boehner and McConnell could have sent that bill to Obama long ago, which begs the question of why did they not? The answer is obvious, Ryan and McConnell sent it now to keep conservatives ‘on the reservation’ because they need their votes in the 2016 election.
“Let me ask what you’d like of Speaker Ryan, and Leader McConnell?”
To support what Cruz has fought for and place America’s needs and interests first. Starting with taking seriously the threats that face this country; the cultural threat of the demographic reality’s of illegal immigration, the terrorist and jihadist threat of Muslim immigration, the obscene levels of debt placed upon future generations, the purposeful erosion and ongoing attacks upon the 1st and 2nd amendments, etc. etc.
Instead its preservation of the status quo and traitorous betrayal of America through collaboration with the democrats. The latest example being the Omnibus bill.
That you apparently actually think that Ryan, McConnell and the GOP have America’s best interests at heart reveals an appalling amount of willful blindness. Their behavior has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise.
J.J., I wish I knew. I think the whole world has gone mad. But one shudders at what Bernie will come up with to separate people from what they worked their whole lives for.
“I can’t escape the idea that the liberal/left press is pushing a Donald Trump candidacy because they feel he’s actually the weakest candidate.”
If you remember, they did the exact same thing to Todd Akin.
It was obvious (before it had become too late) that Akin had horribly damaged himself. Conservatives were begging him to resign and let another person run. But the McCaskill camp fed him disinformation that he was even in the polls, and Akin’s ego was so big that he believed it.
Akin was a fool, and he lost by 15%.
Kyndyll G:
“I think the whole world has gone mad.”
It’s just the activist game. If you’ve played it, what’s happening makes sense.
Concerning the black vote, the last truly competitive Republican Presidential candidate was Nixon in 1960, winning 37%. No GOP candidate has cracked double digits since, except Reagan’s 13% in his 1984 landslide. Anyone asserting ANY nominee could do that well must supply evidence.
Does the voter vote the person? Or the issues of the campaign?
This question goes to the root of the thread.
Nate Silver finds that if it is the person, Trump will do worst. On the other hand, we’ve all seen him take the right and winning side in matters like defense and terrorism, as well as immigration.
Silver sums the available data up this way:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
Richard Nixon was unpopular to look at – yet he still won the presidency in 1968 and 1972. And he wasn’t a popular and successful television personality for a decade, like Trump.
Thus, I see no reason to call Trump out at this point.
The MSM wants Trump as the putatively Republican candidate because it would be a win-win for them. He is the weakest against Clinton, but he is also the most aligned with the MSM’s policy preferences. See, for example, his history of supporting mostly Democrats, backing big government, and crass corporatism.
I think the author is right that the media will always try to support the Republican that will be easiest for the Democrat to beat. And she’s also right that the Left believes that that person is Trump. And they have polls prove it. I just think that the media is as wrong about the election as they were about Obama in 2008 … and Trump a few months ago. And I don’t think the polls reflect the general election as much as the primary campaign.
What impresses me about Trump is his mastery of sales, managing to transform himself from a joke that no one believed in, to the leader in the Republican race. Managing to transform “gaffes” into winning campaign issues. Managing to transform ultra-high negatives into positives. (see this poll). And with a few simple comments effectively neutralizing a meaningful part of Hillary’s appeal … the War on Women.
Trump’s first job is to win the nomination and he’s focused on that. If nominated he’ll focus on his next goal and that’s beating either Hillary or Bernie. At that point the polls will be more meaningful.
Moneyrunner, most of us here still see Trump as a joke. He appeals to LIVs and angry people who don’t care that Trump is a loudmouthed wrecking ball because they want to stick it to the GOP and burn the system down.
What Trump can do is read a crowd. The birther thing didn’t get it done for him before but he stumbled onto immigration this time around and has gotten every mile out of it that he can, despite having no real plan, no cohesive platform or anything else. Mainly, he gets a positive response from flapping his gums and being aggressive and offensive. We’re all sick of PC, but Trump is not anti-PC – he’s just a big, loud, obnoxious bully. He doesn’t care if he eventually crosses the line and derails his campaign, because this is a game – he’s not a politician and when he fumbles this, he’ll go back to his day job.
I get the “not a politician” appeal, but this insensitive, attention-whoring, egotistical turd would be destructive as the leader of a world power. I would vote for him over Hilary or Bernie only because they might be worse.
Occam’s Razor.
Ignore the politics. Which candidate is more exciting to write about, talk about, and will generate more clicks for the media?
Trump.
So, beyond helping Hillary, they’d still push Trump.
Orson:
“Does the voter vote the person? Or the issues of the campaign?”
Those are ‘vote for‘ constructions.
The third consideration is voting against.
Your GE analysis is worthless because you didn’t differentiate between polls of all eligible voters and likely voters.
AT:
“Worthless”? Hardly. As I wrote in the post, all of the polls (both of registered voters and of likely voters) show the same trend re Trump, which is that he does the worst of all the leading GOP candidates against Hillary. Also, I wrote, ” One poll or another tends not to tell the whole story, but the average tells you a lot more, although nothing’s infallible.”
The most recent poll, the one that I linked to, happens to have asked registered voters about the head-to-heads against Hillary, and for the Republican primary questions they asked likely voters in the Republican primaries.
I have to reiterate what many others are saying. Trump’s support in my area comes from the hardly-ever-vote types who likes his bluster and fame. Not a single Democrat I’ve met likes him. And 80 percent of Republican acquaintances hate him, too. I NEVER vote Democrat — and won’t in 2016. But I’ll never vote for Trump. He’s an amoral, narcissistic, thin-skinned daddy’s boy who has bankrupted four companies. He’s just a loud, brash brand in search of a product. Right now that product is “candidate.”
For what it’s worth, my old mother, a liberal Democrat, can’t stand Hillary and likes Rubio. She’s repulsed by Cruz and Trump. Cruz is great on paper but he can’t communicate without a high-pitched phony televangelist whine that alienates even many Republicans.
Kyndyll G.: “J.J., I wish I knew. I think the whole world has gone mad. But one shudders at what Bernie will come up with to separate people from what they worked their whole lives for.”
Drat, I hoped you would have some good ideas. IMO, the awful truth is that there is no place to escape to unless you are very rich.
We have few options except to fight to stop candidates like Bernie and Hillary from getting elected. I’m feeling almost as desperate as I did in 1979 under Carter. I don’t see a Reagan among the GOP hopefuls, but anyone of them along with a GOP Congress (Reagan had to deal with a democrat Congress) could at least stem the leftward tide. We must all fight in what ever ways we can. Volunteer, write e-mails, make phone calls, talk to your neighbors, join an activist movement like Heritage/Judicial Watch/TEA Party/etc., become an activist ala Eric’s suggestions, and ??? It’s time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their party. 🙂