Trump’s women problem—and Cruz’s?
As time has gone on, Trump has become more and more unpopular with women voters, and that includes Republican women:
This month, about half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. (About 40 percent of male GOP primary voters said the same.)…
Trump’s favorability with women overall is a dismal 21 percent positive/ 70 (!) percent negative.
With men, it’s 28 percent positive/ 59 percent negative.
And while women traditionally vote for Democratic candidates in larger numbers than men, data shows that a Trump nomination would exacerbate the issue for Republicans.
Asked if they would prefer to see a Democratic president or a Republican president regardless of who the nominees are, 52 percent of female voters chose the Democratic option while 36 percent chose the Republican option. That’s a net advantage of 16 percentage points for the Democratic candidate.
But plug in the names “Hillary Clinton” and “Donald Trump” and the gap gets even wider.
In that hypothetical matchup, just 31 percent of women said they would chose Trump, while 58 percent said they would chose Clinton. That’s a net advantage of 27 points for Clinton.
I think this is unprecedented, although I have no proof. It’s certainly ominous for a Trump candidacy, and I don’t see it changing, except for the worse.
I’ve seen it said by a lot of blog commenters and bloggers that Trump is an alpha male, and as such he appeals to women. I’ve long been puzzled by this “alpha male” designation, because it seems to me that Trump has little in common with actual alpha males. They don’t boast and tell you how great they are and how much everyone likes them and how much money they make, or lie to make themselves sound bigger and better. Those are fake alpha males. No one who really is like that needs to brag about it.
Alpha male examples: the characters John Wayne played. Reagan. Washington. Eisenhower. Many in the military. That guy who was instrumental in stopping the French train terrorist attack recently, for example.
Fake alpha males: Charlie Sheen. Donald Trump. Most of the guys on those “I’ve got game” blogs (I forget the names of the blogs, but I’ve read a number of them on occasion).
I had written all of the above before I saw this article at American Thinker, which says essentially the same thing—including another thought I had recently (after Trump’s targeting of Heidi Cruz’s looks), which was that “Trump fights like a girl.”
Here’s the American Thinker article:
To elaborate, this tweet, and its implied message, smacks of thirteen-year-old girl cattiness. “Never talk to my boyfriend again, Suzy! He would hate you anyway, because you’re so ugly!”
Why then, to be perfectly clear, have I flipped my previous assessment of Trump’s character from thirteen-year-old boy to thirteen-year-old girl? Because thirteen-year-old boys don’t attack other boys by telling them their girlfriends are ugly. Even by that pubescent stage of development, a normal boy has learned, by hormonal intuition if not by the influence of a decent father figure, that getting at a rival by insulting his girl is just about the most unmanly thing a male of the species can do…
And how will Trump’s most boisterous supporters defend their hero’s girlish attack on Cruz’ wife? They will say, as they already are saying, “But he started it!”
That’s what I meant by calling Trump “juvenile.” And it boggles my mind that so many people seem to think this indicates strength on Trump’s part.
Now the Trump activists are touting this National Enquirer article about Ted Cruz’s supposed affairs. It won’t matter a bit to them if a shred of proof is never found ; the rumor is good enough. And it doesn’t matter a bit to them that Trump has had multiple affairs and bragged about them.
Now, I have no idea whether the Enquirer story is true or not. I tend to think not, simply because I think Cruz is too smart to run for president with that many skeletons rattling around in his closet. But as I said, I don’t know, but the point of running such a story—true or not—is to get the rumors flowing.
And it comes as no surprise whatsoever—none—to learn that the CEO of the Enquirer and Trump are great good friends and have been for quite some time (and note that the following was written back in October):
Trump and Enquirer CEO David Pecker have been friends for years. “They’re very close,” said a source close to the Enquirer…
…[Trump’s] friendship with Pecker has paid dividends. At key moments during the GOP primary the Enquirer has helped boost Trump’s campaign by attacking his rivals and fawning over him. Two weeks after Trump launched his campaign in mid-June, the Enquirer reported that Jeb Bush was “involved in the drug trade in Florida” in the ’80s and that, as governor, he was plagued by “sleazy cheating scandals ”¦ [with a] Playboy Bunny turned lawyer.” In September, the Enquirer published an unflattering photograph of Bush’s adult daughter apparently taking cigarette breaks at her office. The article hit just days after Jeb told Americans they needed to work longer hours.
Carly Fiorina has also been slimed. After the former Hewlett-Packard CEO bested Trump at the second GOP debate last month, the Enquirer ran an article headlined “Homewrecker Carly Fiorina Lied About Druggie Daughter.” The article attacked one of Fiorina’s best moments at the debate: her emotional account of her daughter’s struggle with drug addiction. “The National Enquirer has exclusively learned that Lori Ann Fiorina, who died in October 2009, was in fact Carly’s stepdaughter,” the tabloid reported. “She was brought up not by Carly but by her biological mom, Patricia Fiorina, whose marriage allegedly was wrecked by the 61-year-old White House hopeful who is determined to knock Donald Trump from his superior front-runner status!”…
Meanwhile, Trump has been exclusively celebrated in the Enquirer’s pages. As talk of a Trump candidacy heated up last winter, the tabloid published an article headlined “Trump’s the One!” that reported him leading in the polls. In September, the Enquirer published a three-part series by Trump himself under the headline “The Man Behind the Legend!”
About a month ago the Enquirer endorsed Trump enthusiastically and unequivocally, and rumor has it (see? I can play that game too) that Trump’s own dirt is strictly off-limits for the tabloid.
I’d like to add that this is the sort of thing I detest writing about. But this is the sort of thing we’ll be seeing more and more of this campaign season, I would wager.
So the Reverend Captain Queeg Esquire has been getting it on. Who’d a thought?
Probably did it strictly for his constitution.
Anyway, keep on scribbling 🙂
First of all i know you said that you dont want to consider the action of a PAC to the candidates… except for one thing… the organization that started this is not a PAC, its an LLC, and as such is free to take money, not report who they got it from AND collude with the candidate as the PAC laws do not pertain to a LLC.
cute… but the news says pac, not LLC… right?
then you quote Carrie Dunn from NBC, the station known for the most lies and untruth scandals that include dan rather who lied so bad his career ended in discrace. and what about Brian Williams who you can list out 32 big lies the network leaders didnt bother to care about as it got ratings.
Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea
Yeah, cause someone in South Korea with a progressive degree from a very liberal college in what is now a Marxist dominated area, has his finger on the pulse of a country he doesn’t live in, has never lived in, and will tell you about it from Korea, cause he knows trump, women, etc…
you live in the US and dont know as much as someone who doesnt live here, never lived here, doesnt live in his own country and is all the way around the globe earning extra money writing political bs in which he is very subtle burying a seed in an article that is mostly right… (great technique, kind of like slipping drugs in a large drink)
This was a setup and most people know it. No matter what Trump did he would lose, and no one is paying attention to the devil in the details that make the distinction..
but i will show you
By the way, this caught me before i figured it out as i also used the wrong term, and the wrong laws, and that was real tricky – it got us BOTH….
neo-neocon Says: including the fact that the anti-Melania post came first from the PAC (which actually was originally a pro-Rubio PAC). /// I am heartily sick of any candidate having the actions of any PAC attributed to that candidate.
Except that the facebook and source of this is NOT A PAC and the laws that restrict PAC dont apply to it!!!
it caught EVERYONE, from Blumenthall and on and on.
The Trump Card LLC is not a PAC…
from the person who set it up:
As a limited liability company, Trump Card LLC wouldn’t have to disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission. Viveca Novak, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said she was aware of no restrictions on the kinds of political activities that could be funded through an LLC. “Anyone can set one up,” she said. “You don’t know who is behind it.” — Mair
The law that applies to the PAC does NOT apply to an LLC.. so they ARE free too coordinate, but not have to tell you anything. they are free to take foreign money, or any other stuff, can lie as to whther they do or not, and you have no recourse as that is all legal.
from slate
Candidates and Their Super PACs Can’t Legally Coordinate. Here’s How They Do Anyway – Slate
You see, if it was a PAC, then Mair would be restricted as to the name of it, but since its an LLC she can use Trumps name when if it was a PAC, that was not possible (legally). [the downside for them is that they have to pay taxes in exchange for the secrecy and freedom to collude, etc]
[edited for length by n-n]
Good stuff, Art. Keep digging.
Pingback:neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Trump’s women problem—and Cruz’s? | Head Noises
I’ve left a number of comments here that were both skeptical of the actual number of committed conservatives and Republicans supporting Trump, while defending the outrage of Trump supporters.
He’s speaking – they presume – on behalf of people who have been slated by the incestuous, self-dealing, and unprincipled governing elites for obsolescence and replacement. The new ownership wants a new, more tractable, more highly socialized, human resource pool to manage.
And these silly bitter clingers just cannot seem to get with the program!
However …. there is Trump himself.
I guess we can start off with the remark of a New York Post writer who shrugged at the invective and personal jabs emanating from Trump by claiming it was all part of a time honored New York tradition of “busting balls”. Apparently it’s something Gotham Goodfellows enjoy as they size each other up, and establish a pecking order … all to be endured with good humor, no standing on personal honor, and the rules demand that you only can win by flinging the most mud, not throwing the most effective punch.
Now how and wy such a society would come to be, or why anyone would think it anything but morally defective is a mystery to me. But I am not from New York, and don’t think that preserving a place in the group for amoral offensive and annoying persons is any kind of human obligation in the first place. I’m one of those guys who thinks that the duel between Burr and Hamilton was a tragedy of sorts, but that that emotionally volatile and immature, vainglorious, probably manic-depressive, son of a bitch Hamilton got exactly what he was trolling for.
So Trump then. This is a guy who says he is running for President, yet spends time like a twit: on Twitter, tweeting insults at anther man’s wife.
If “The Donald” had been a man of honor, and not a blowhard, he would have called up Cruz personally and requested an explanation as to what if anything Cruz knew of, and thought of, the Super Pac’s attack on Trump’s wife.
And, if Cruz issued a categorical denial regarding either responsibility or approval, a man of honor would accept that denial, and presume it to be true until and unless unequivocal evidence demonstrated otherwise.
And then in that case, the target would be Cruz, not his wife.
Some years ago, back when I was more susceptible to being dragged into arguments with less than fully human left-wing trolls, a collectivist type attempting to draw some kind of obscure political analogy while delivering an emotionally unsettling jolt, attempted to mock something I had said, by retorting:
“So then, if I punched your wife in the face, you think that would give you the right to attack my wife?”
The response of course was,
“No, it would give me the right to put the quietus on you.”
That he never thought of that, shows what kind of man he was.
Trump, unfortunately seems to be just that kind of man, in more ways than one.
Art:
Down the rabbit hole again. Sir Humpty Trumpty will be proud of you,
Why do Trump and his supporters so frequently resort to the same tactics as progressives?
Emotional bullying: check.
Smear campaigns: check.
Paranoid conspiracy theories: check.
False equivalencies: check.
Tu quoque arguments: check.
“Inevitability:” check.
“I think this is unprecedented, although I have no proof. It’s certainly ominous for a Trump candidacy, and I don’t see it changing, except for the worse.”
I am going to disagree with you on this, Neo. Because yesterday I looked up interviews with Melania and Donald Trump. Melania is pretty awesome…and will certainly be an asset to Trump’s campaign. I also include Ivanka in that mix. First season of “The Apprentice” (and several season after that) Carloyn Kepcher (who was an Exec. VP in the Trump organization) was his 2nd in command for that show. He has plenty of women working in his organization who are in management roles.
He will win over women and his numbers will go up.
Tell me what will happen to Cruz’s women vote with the airing of this new scandal. There seems to be much more truth to this than you think. It is not some National Enquirer ‘fake’ scandal. If you read up on it, Rubio supporters were pushing for this to come out several weeks ago. They gave up on it when Rubio dropped out and they didn’t want Trump to win.
This story is only in its infancy. One of the identified women is Katrina Pierson, Trump’s spokesperson…you think that is coincidence? I don’t.
Trump met Pierson early last year by chance…and then suddenly she is his spokesperson? I think Pierson has the dirt on Cruz and Trump used her to his advantage. She has been in front of the press for months and months. She is a credible Trump campaign person. She is not some unknown floozy looking to get in the limelight. So if she has something to spill, it will lend some credibility to the story.
Do some searching on twitter for “#CruzSexScandal” and find where some in the know say at least two of these affairs are real.
Anyway, Trump’s numbers with women are going to go up. His wife is exceedingly smart and refined. So are his daughters. This will resonate over time.
Yeah, Trump’s numbers with women are going to go up – on a different planet. It’s one thing to support the guy, it’s something different to deny reality. Well, actually maybe not.
Matt_SE:
“Why do Trump and his supporters so frequently resort to the same tactics as progressives?”
That’s easy to answer. Because they’re competitors. Conservatives evidently are not competitors, not for real.
The strategy picked by Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists functioning as the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon is simply tailored to the opponent. The tactics aren’t innovative. They’re off the shelf and, as you point out, familiar.
Like everyone else, they’ve observed the long track record of Left-activist effectiveness – the Gramscian march – against the gaping vulnerability caused by conservatives’ willful deficiency of activism.
Conservatives have caused the GOP vulnerability to Left activism because Republicans rely on the Right to compete in the activist game in the same way that Democrats rely on the Left for activism.
The Right has long chosen to leave an open field for Left to run up the score and seize critical social ground. The Trump-front alt-Right is merely taking advantage of the same inviting opening by copying the Democrat-front Left.
Only an activist social movement can counter an activist social movement, but the off-putting Left-activist style is not the only way to compete in the activist game. Effective counter-Left activism need not mimic the Left in style. Activism is a workshop of tools with which to tailor your gameplay to your personal preference. Nonetheless, competing for real requires marking the same basic activist principles they do.
As long as conservatives eschew activism, the sincere competitors in the arena will accept the invitation to run up the score and seize the social ground that conservatives choose to give away.
One of the “mistresses” is Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, another is the former campaign spokesperson for Carly Fiorina. Another is a pro-Cruz CNN commentator.
That plus the news that Trump is buddies with National Enquirer honcho = Fake Story.
I’ve always maintained that I’d vote for Trump if I had to (ie., if he was the nominee and the other choice was Clinton or Sanders) and that a brokered convention was a very bad idea. This puketastic smear makes me favor a brokered convention.
Err…umm…K-E…regarding Katrina Pierson? Here is two of her tweets today:
*******
Katrina PiersonVerified accountâ€@KatrinaPierson
Of course the National Enquirer story is 100% FALSE!!! I only speak to myself, however. Carry on…
8:59 AM – 25 Mar 2016
–
Katrina PiersonVerified accountâ€@KatrinaPierson
What’s worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it’s false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels
8:14 AM – 25 Mar 2016
Of course Pierson is going to deny…if she admitted to it right now, it would certainly look like a Trump plant story. Read on Twitter. Washington Times reporter acknowledges that 2 of the 5 affairs are real. Why would he say that?
There is more to this story. You just don’t want to read it. This was out there several weeks ago and connected to Rubio…not Trump. THEY were looking for a news outlet to carry it..and it didn’t happen.
NE has been right about numerous political affairs. More is going to come out. It’s not just another trash journalism story.
Do I really need to remind you all that NE broke stories on Gary Hart, Tiger Woods, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson…ALL true.
Meanwhile down at the Trump Farm, we mostly lack the edumacation to fully grok Robert Frost. When Hesiod starts to drag, one must needs make do with Dusty Springfield:
Bein’ good isn’t always easy
No matter how hard the try
When he started sweet-talkin’ to me
He’d kiss and tell me “Everything is all right”
Baby baby everything is all right
Can I sneak away again tonight now?
The only one who could ever reach me
(Was the son of a preacher man)
I tell you that the only boy who could ever teach me
(Was the son of a preacher man)
Yes he was, yeah he was, oh he was
(Halleluiah, halleluiah, halleluiah)
K-E:
Right on schedule–the denials won’t matter, right? Because the rumors are out there now.
Carry on.
And actually read those articles about the things the Enquirer has published about each Trump-opponent in succession. Being right about Edwards doesn’t make them right about a lot of the stuff they publish, and wishful thinking on your part doesn’t make it so.
We’ll see. As I said, may be true, may be false, but right now I see no reason to believe it.
K-E:
I can’t imagine what women would care what Ivanka or Melania says, when the evidence of Trump and women who are NOT his wife or daughter is before their eyes.
The nice-to-wife-and-daughter is the equivalent of “some of my best friends are black.”
Neo – what about Carolyn? And other women in his organization?
I suppose that means nothing either. Where are all of the former female employees to tell the dirt about what a womanizer Trump is? They are nowhere.
Employees only have glowing things to say about him.
I think how a man treats his wife and his daughter says a lot about him. Katrina Pierson as his spokesperson tells me something too.
As far as the NE story, I am not going to dismiss it out of hand because NE has been right on a number of political scandals. I will read up on it where I can to see if it holds water.
Right now, Pierson’s connection to this is a very strange one. Why her? If it is all bunk, why was she chosen as one of the five? It doesn’t make sense. Therefore, I think there is something to this.
What, I am not sure, but something stinks.
K-E:
Are you really that ignorant of Trump’s history?
I’ve never seen anything about him sexualizing employees, although I suppose he might. But he is very upfront about multiple affairs, including the one that broke up his first marriage and was fodder for tabloids for years.
I don’t think he mixes work with pleasure. Nor do I think that at almost 70 he’s up to his old tricks, despite the reputed size of his member.
K-E:
I happen to agree with you that Melania and Ivanka are an asset to Trump, and it’s apparently accurate that he employs many highly competent professional women in his business ventures. However, if you think that will be enough to boost his overall numbers with women you are dreaming.
Trump has said and done so many deeply unappealing and unattractive things that’s it’s hard to know where to begin. There are the past Trump comments pinpointed by Megyn Kelly (and his sexist and offensive response to her). The bragging about his past sexual conquests and famous comment re: “young and beautiful piece of a**.” The sneering insults directed toward Heidi Cruz, and so many others (female and male). The whole beauty pageant thing (this isn’t 1950…many, many women on both sides of the aisle now regard beauty pageants as retrograde at best). The standard Trump bullying and belittling of everyone who challenges him. The unattractive smirk and haircut. Shall I go on?
In short, Melania and Trump’s female employees may well find his $$$ (and possibly other personal qualities) attractive, but I can assure you that vast majority of women do not.
So it appears that we’ll have a choice between two Democrats in November, one of whom fits the classic definition of “sexist pig.” I wouldn’t bet money on Trump’s ability to “win over women,” as many tend to have long memories.
In the primary I voted Cruz. At this point I’ve absolutely had it with both of them, and I would not vote for Hillary to save my life. In the general I may vote Gary Johnson . . .
Papa Dan, the sentiment of your comment is one reason why I am starting to give more serious consideration to the idea (previously tagged by me as conspiratorial) that Trump’s purpose is to help Hillary Clinton.
If Trump doesn’t care about winning, doesn’t expect to win and is only trying to block for Clinton – if he can get dirty enough to drag Cruz into the mud, regardless of Cruz’s valiant attempts to stay out of the mud and stay focused on substance, then the subsequent “Oh, a pox on both your houses” sentiment towards all on the Republican side is a net plus for her, no?
I just don’t know. But I don’t believe it’s fair to expect Cruz to do nothing in response. Trump has shown an absolute genius for manipulating his opponents into “heads I win, tails you lose” situations. Cruz has been more adept at dodging than most, but the onslaught has been relentless and, now, concentrated.
If Cruz were able to pull off the nomination, by all means I would vote for him, but I won’t be surprised if the convention is brokered . . . and it’s downhill from there.
In an open convention it is possible that neither Trump or Cruz will win the nomination. Think Abraham Lincoln.
Barring Hillary being indicted, the internecine warfare among republican voters will hand the election to Hillary. Cruz’s supporters won’t vote for Trump. Trump’s supporters won’t vote for a nominee that steals the nomination from Trump. It increasingly looks like neo is right about the evisceration of the GOP, which we are all witnessing.
“We have met the enemy and he is us…” Pogo
1984 gets closer every day. And, when it arrives it will be considered a no-brainer that Hillary’s election in 2016 sealed America’s fate.
I care about the policy positions of the candidates – foreign policy, protecting America, cutting the growth of government, return power to the states and the people.
I hear more about the issues from Cruz. From Trump, it seems that it is all about the playground-level taunts.
I am amazed that we haven’t heard more about the person who started with this crap – Liz M. and that ad. In this day, why would a woman post an ad that was so sexist? Did she not know what a firestorm she would create? Did she care? What purpose did she have? Wasn’t she in Walker’s campaign and didn’t he just come out with a statement saying that if a contested convention, the candidate will be someone not in the race? I know, that sounds very conspiracy minded.
I’m glad that I am getting old – in a few more years, I won’t give a damn. I feel for my nieces and grand nephews and what they will be living through.
[One of Cruz’s alleged paramour] Sarah Isgur Flores worked for Carly Fiorina as deputy campaign manager. In July 2015 an unusual $500,000 donation was made by Ted Cruz-affiliated Super PAC, Keep the Promise to Carly Fiorina’s official campaign fund:
http://tinyurl.com/hp6t5c7
Unusual?
The Treehouse is all abuzz today.
K-E – Just admit how badly you reallllly want to believe this.
“Of course Pierson is going to deny…if she admitted to it right now, it would certainly look like a Trump plant story.”
But if it’s true, so what if Trump planted the story?
Read on Twitter. Washington Times reporter acknowledges that 2 of the 5 affairs are real. Why would he say that?”
Drew Johnson @ #Drews_Views tweeted: “COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate.”
Never mind why he would say that (which is obvious), what does that mean?
“There is more to this story. You just don’t want to read it.”
If there’s more to the story, I’ll read it.
“This was out there several weeks ago and connected to Rubio…not Trump. THEY were looking for a news outlet to carry it..and it didn’t happen.”
Which kind of makes it more obviously fake since it couldn’t get traction until Trump’s friend put it in his mag.
“NE has been right about numerous political affairs. More is going to come out.
National Enquirer has been obviously wrong and tabloidy on a regular basis, in every issue, for decades. Occasionally they strike pay dirt but then it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s not.
“It’s not just another trash journalism story.”
So say you without any other basis other than Trump Fervor.
Cruz blew it. He should have made a joke of it and said, “Aw Donny, your friends at the NE put that out because you’re jealous” and moved on.
I’m a bit disappointed in Cruz. When Melina Trump’s nude picture was aired, Cruz declared that he had nothing to do with it. Cruz clearly expected Trump to take his word for it, despite the fact that Cruz did not ask the LLC to take the ad down, which could indicate a passive aggressive move on Cruz’s part.
Now, Cruz is rejecting Trump’s declaration that he had nothing to do with the NE story and hasn’t even read it. So a man who claims to be principled appears to be setting a double standard; Trump should accept Cruz’s assurances but Cruz refuses to accept Trump’s assurances…
Geoffrey – why would Cruz ask for the ad to “come down”? It only ran through Tuesday’s primary. By the time Trump created this controversy, it was already “down”.
It was a freaking ‘slut shaming’ attack on Trumps wife – a woman who knows five languages. So what if she modeled for some mens magazines a decade or so ago? Only a few religious nuts are gonna care.
And what was Trump supposed to do? Let Cruz attack his wife (because even if it HAD BEEN a Superpac and not an LLC I don’t for one minute believe Cruz wasn’t aware of the ad. He pulled similar crap more than once earlier in the primaries with rumors about Carson) without threatening retaliation? Damn straight, I’d do the same thing: You mess with my family, I’ll mess with yours.
Of course Cruz is a liar and a fraud as it is. He got so much support in Utah because they worship and trust Mitt Romney there (giving him 90 percent plus of the vote in the primaries) but luckily evangelical voting blocs are pretty rare in the rest of the country.
Far as it goes, though they will try to stop him, I’m pretty sure Trump will get the required numbers of Delegates to be the nominee. And I’m sure most here will vote for Hillary. She is more to your foreign policy likings, after all.
Eric said:
That’s easy to answer. Because they’re competitors. Conservatives evidently are not competitors, not for real.
I’ve said as much. It’s not that conservatives can’t engage in the Marxist activist method, it’s that they *won’t*. It doesn’t suit their worldview or their principles.
parker Says:
In an open convention it is possible that neither Trump or Cruz will win the nomination. Think Abraham Lincoln.
Last cycle, the GOPe put in place rule 40b (I think): the requirement that any nominee must have won at least 8 states to be eligible.
Changing that rule at the convention, no matter the excuse, would be seen as cheating. I don’t think the GOP will do that.
The choice will be Trump or Cruz, and nobody else (assuming it comes down to the contested convention).
I won’t submit Says:
[Cruz/Fiorina conspiracy theory]
Cruz wasn’t the only one to donate to keep Fiorina in the race. I heard that Jeb, Rubio and Carson did too.
Which is the same thing that Soros is doing for Kasich.
I note that this conspiracy theory is popular among the alt-right crowd, which isn’t surprising considering that Trump’s campaign manager is formerly from Infowars.
Trump may have finally crossed the line, as his supporters’ frenzy today shows. They are in various stages of justification, denial, anger, etc.
The only real test is what happens to Trump’s poll numbers.
So far, the latest two polls from WI show Cruz at +1 and +5 over Trump. That may be the reason for the Trump smear job.
Hopefully, this damages him horribly. Then, we can go to a contested convention, Trump can lose the 1st ballot (maybe the 2nd), and his delegates are freed to vote for Cruz.
The only people disenfranchised will be kooks, cynical dropouts, and Democrats.
Luckily for them, president Cruz will be a just and merciful chief executive.
Matt
Trump’s supporters are not even in play.
The folks that must be targeted are the not-Trump faithful.
If Cruz can keep Trump from being automatic…
The not-Trump crowd ought to swing to him.
This fiasco would not be under way without the ‘talents’ of Rubio and Kasich.
Kasich would melt down entirely against Hillary.
He’d be Hillary-lite.
Dang if I can spot any policy differences between the two.
Hillary’s camp is sure to look past — to move on — her storied legacy.
The Daily Mail is saying the source was a former Rubio campaign manager, and the Rubio campaign had been shopping the Cruz affairs story for over 6 months. And mentions Breitbart [News] passed on it.
I listened carefully to Cruz’s verbal response to the story (i.e., audio over the radio). Anyone else notice what he didn’t specifically say?
Listen carefully. Parse his reply. Notice now?
Lawyers, sigh.
Crap.
Crap-crap-crap.
I keep an ear on Michael Savage if for no other reason than to gauge Tump’s place in the race. Savage was an early supporter and has given Trump a lot of air time. Today, Good Friday, he came on the show even though he admitted that he had planned to have a guest host, and started out trashing the Enquirer story. He was livid and disgusted by it. He called on Trump to disavow it and promised that he would withdraw his endorsement if he didn’t. He said he had inside sources who connected Trump’s campaign director to it. He said he was affected by it because he has been personally attacked with similar stuff over the years and that it amounted to character assassination. He said he would have not part of it or a candidate to stooped to using it. Tough words from one of Trump’s biggest backers.
brdavis9 Says:
The Daily Mail is saying the source was a former Rubio campaign manager, and the Rubio campaign had been shopping the Cruz affairs story for over 6 months. And mentions Breitbart [News] passed on it.
So what you’re saying is that the Rubio campaign had a weapon but never pulled the trigger (assuming this story isn’t just bullshit). So what.
I had a gun once that I never misused. It got stolen and then used in a crime. Am I responsible for the crime?
If Rubio never pulled the trigger then he never pulled the trigger. Nobody gives a shit where this slime originated. It irritates me to hear you spouting the same repetative rhetoric that they use on Breitbart to try and excuse Trump’s behavior.
Anyone else notice what he didn’t specifically say?
Was it too subtle when Cruz said “It is complete and utter lies?” Here’s the full video; move to the 1:30 mark.
https://youtu.be/tjK2-Txynm4
BTW, you realize that the only two women to be interviewed on this IMMEDIATELY AND VEHEMENTLY denied the allegations, right?
Rubio’s operatives peddled this story for MONTHS before the Enquirer ran it.
Rubio.
You know, Dondi.
If Trump hands the election to HRC, may he rot in H***.
On the other hand, why have people become gallant knights horrified at Trump’s treatment of women? Sheesh! Women are out there, in the fray, they need a man (and by extension kid-glove handling by a man) the way a fish needs a bicycle.
All this swooning and vapors over how Trump speaks about some women is sort of disingenuous. They, the women, chose to enter the rough and tumble, then they would be expected to take the hard knocks.
No special protections for women, or should I say for the dear old gals?
Beverly Says:
Rubio’s operatives peddled this story for MONTHS before the Enquirer ran it.
Rubio.
You know, Dondi.
And EVERYONE declined to run it (because it was specious and salacious), until Trump’s buddy at the National Enquirer came along. Luckily, he has no standards at all, and knows how to word an article *just so* so that it doesn’t meet the definition of libel.
Now, because of the building backlash against Trump for peddling sleaze, his supporters are furiously backtracking.
What other lies will Trump supporters have to tell on Donald’s behalf before this is over?
Wait, let me guess:
Your response will be to mindlessly repeat the Rubio line again, as if that made a bit of difference to anyone.
Have you Trump supporters become cultists, where all you can do is repeat the party line? The only thing Trump hasn’t (yet) asked you to do is shave your heads and self-castrate.
A piece of advice: when the time comes, drink the Kool Aid last, so you can just walk away. You may even get a book deal and lots of money for “telling your story of survival.”
This may be a little off topic, but nevertheless relates to Cruz and this story of personal character assassination. You can call it a post-mortem of the Cruz campaign since I believe Trump will be the nominee. Nothing Ted Cruz or anyone else can do will change it.
Ted Cruz as a candidate had one major personal character flaw that he tried to overcome, which was his inability to connect to the average person. With a brilliant mind always one step ahead of the guy next to him he couldn’t be himself and at the same time be accessible. His way of connecting to people was through religion, what he thought was the common denominator holding the right together, and what he thought was the basic moral underpinning holding everyone together. He wasn’t totally wrong since it worked for him in places like Iowa and Utah. But it was not nearly enough.
What Trump’s campaign is doing is a final assault on the one thing Cruz based his appeal on, his religious following and his blemish free character and high morals. Cruz’ conservative credentials, voting record, educational and intellectual achievements have been beside the point in an election based on emotion and personal feelings. What I kept hoping for was someone who based his or her campaign on reason alone. Fiorina came close, as did Ben Carson on occasion. But none of them could get past the hype and circus of Trump.
The Other Chuck:
I think Cruz also based his campaign on both reason and conservatism.
Nor am I certain that Trump will be the nominee. I think it’s likely, maybe 75% or so likely, but by no means a done deal. If not, I’m not sure it will be Cruz, either.
How’s that for waffling?
I also think there’s a chance these allegations won’t hurt Cruz except with those who already weren’t disposed to vote for him. They don’t seem to be sticking, although all dirt sticks somewhat.
Time will tell.
Jayne:
What women are you talking about–candidates’ wives like Heidi Cruz, who are usually off-limits to other candidates, and yet whom Trump himself has dissed?
I don’t think anyone here has the vapors or thinks they need extra protection. But it is extremely valid to point out what this says about Trump and his character.
Beverly:
When last I checked, Rubio was no longer in the running.
And the word “operatives” covers an awful lot, doesn’t it? What’s more, funny thing how it wasn’t published back then, apparently because there’s nothing much to it. If you actually read the story, it’s a report that there are reports of affairs. Until there’s more, give the gossip a break.
It is of note, however, that it gets trotted out by Trump’s good buddy when Trump’s locked in a battle with Cruz. No doubt you think that’s a coincidence, or Rubio’s fault, or “Rubio’s operatives'” fault.
Jayne: “On the other hand, why have people become gallant knights horrified at Trump’s treatment of women?”
Removing all the emotionally charged words such as “gallant knights” and “horrified”, I think the biggest problem, or at least the root problem that Trump has that disqualifies him for President is this: He treats people like crap.
I may be in a minority, but in my assessment of another human being I generally like to get an idea of how they treat others. I think it’s an important trait in a leader – are they ruthless or do they exhibit any form of grace or appropriate gentleness, especially when dealing with people who are not enemies of the country.
Trump treats everyone who comes against him like garbage, whether they are in the way of his real-estate plans, or in the way of his presidency. Just treats ’em like crap. Some people see this as strength. I see it as a really, really bad character flaw and disqualifier.
“So say you without any other basis other than Trump Fervor.”
Not so. I’ve been around for awhile. I’ve watched the NE be right about plenty of other sex scandals involving political figures. I find it interesting that the writer who tackled the Edwards story is the same one tackling the Cruz story. This is where my thoughts are coming from.
Trump has been incredibly silent on this story. I am not taking my thoughts from him or anyone else. This is purely from my OWN head and what has turned out to be true in the past.
Cruz and his wife lived apart on-and-off throughout their marriage. There is something strange there. The story about his wife having some kind of nervous breakdown on the side of the road was also strange. Many people are turned off to Ted because they think he is ‘creepy’ and a bit oily. And this was well before the affair rumors. Cruz has proven that he is sneaky and manipulative.
I will remind you 9 months ago I was THRILLED that Cruz jumped into the race. I even donated a small amount of $$ to him to make sure he stayed in when the number of candidates looked insurmountable. So CRUZ himself has changed my mind about him and his motives, his candidacy. NOT Trump.
There is something off about Cruz in the way he uses psychologists to target voters with the words they want to hear, the emails I received for months from his campaign (very different in tone and style from Carson and Carly…I was receiving their email stuff as well for months), the behind-the-scenes shenanigans in Iowa and other places, the hiring of a slimey campaign director. Little by little Cruz has turned me OFF to his campaign by his own actions.