The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Late Vote Counting Shows Hillary Vulnerable in Pennsylvania
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One way to think about November is using the concept of a “shadow race” between Trump and Clinton in their respective primaries.

When I checked with about 75% of the vote counted in Pennsylvania, a potential swing state with 20 electoral votes, Hillary and the Donald were doing about equally well within their own parties, but Hillary was up by almost 125,000 votes statewide.

So Pennsylvania was looking like New York a week ago: a gratifying primary win for Trump, but probably irrelevant in the general election due to the huge Democratic advantage in turnout. Pennsylvania has gone Democratic in the last 6 Presidential elections, so if Democrats are turning out in vast numbers to vote for Hillary, it doesn’t sound good for Trump.

But that perspective was exploded in the late vote counting. Late that evening, commenter PN observed:

And with 99% of the vote counted Trump ends up with about 26,000 fewer voters than Hillary — far less of an uphill climb than it seemed early last night. The real issue looking ahead to the GE is what becomes of those Bernie voters (an enormous 700,000+ in PA).

Doubtless Trump will push them to stay home or cross over. How many can he get to do either? The answer to this question seems like it will determine how the election goes as a whole.

Commenter Alex7 followed up:

With 99% of the vote counted in Pennsylvania, the total Democrats’ vote is about 1653K to the Republicans’ 1573K or a slight 51.2-48.8 Dem advantage in a closed primary. Its odd the the GOP would beat the Dems in turnout in Delaware County (where Obama won 60% in 2012) but not win the turnout for the state. However, the Western PA counties seem to explain why. The Democrats beat the Republicans in Allegheny County 220K to 120K in turnout or roughly 65-35. (Obama won that county in 2012, but with 56.5% of the vote.) Like the other counties around it, Allegheny has been trending Republican since NAFTA, so I suspect a lot of blue collar Democrats who voted for Bernie will vote for Trump in the fall. Overall, I like Trump’s chances in Pennsylvania.

It should also be noted that Dem turnout was down 30% in PA compared to 2008 and that Hillary received 350,000 less votes in 2016 than she did in 2008′s primary. In fact, Obama ’08 in PA’s primary received more votes that Hillary ’16.

Commenter Ed notes:

I went to the Wikipedia article on the 2012 election and got their list of the states where the margin of victory was under 10% last time. These are the swing states:

Donk:

Florida, 0.88% – 29 electoral votes
Ohio, 2.98% – 18
Virginia, 3.87% – 13
Colorado, 5.37% – 9
Pennsylvania, 5.39% – 20
New Hampshire, 5.58% – 4
Iowa, 5.81% – 6
Nevada, 6.68% – 6
Wisconsin, 6.94% – 10
Minnesota, 7.69% – 10
Michigan, 9.50% – 16

GOP:

North Carolina, 2.04% – 15
Georgia, 7.82% – 16
Arizona, 9.06% – 11
Missouri, 9.38% – 10

With the other states, if they flip, its some sort of national popular vote blow-out, probably after some real or manufactured scandal. Though Utah is a special case.

But in a close race, I don’t see Trump having to play defense anywhere. The only one of the four GOP states on the list he might have more problems with than the generic Republican nominee is Missouri, and the state has been getting redder and redder each election regardless.

Of the states on the Donk list, I expect that he will have problems with Virginia (a third of the state’s population is in the DC metro area), and the upper Midwestern states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, though trade issues will help him in Michigan. But he will get a regional advantage in the Northeast, which Romney didn’t have despite being Governor of Massachusetts for a few years since he really comes from corporate-land.

So he should target heavily Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, as well as the prototypical swing states of Florida (where he maintains a residence) and Ohio. New Hampshire doesn’t have many electoral votes, but Pennsylvania still does and is the swing state potentially most receptive to his message.

Romney needed 64 more electoral votes to get to 270, which is the lowest possible majority out of the 538 total electoral votes. Defending all of Romney’s states will be a challenge for Trump’s ability to appear Presidential. People put Romney down a lot, but he wasn’t a terrible candidate. At minimum, he seemed Presidential. He would have won quite a few elections in the late 20th Century. But in the 21st Century he couldn’t dig out of the demographic hole that Republicans had dug for themselves.

The simplest route for Trump would seem to be to hold Romney’s states and flip:

Florida, 0.88% – 29
Ohio, 2.98% – 18 (47 cumulative)
Pennsylvania, 5.39% – 20 (67)
New Hampshire, 5.58% – 4 (71)
Nevada, 6.68% – 6 (77)
Michigan, 9.50% – 16 (93)

Now, the GOPe Brain Trust has always been focused, not absurdly, on Florida. Thus the perceived need to nominate a Florida Cuban (Rubio) or a Florida Mexican-in-law (Jeb).

But … even without Florida … Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan add up to 64 electoral votes, which if Trump could defend all of Romney’s states, gives him … 270 and the White House.

Now the Democrats are going to look at this list and redouble their efforts to fight the fall election on ethnic hatred lines. The Democrats are going to go to Florida and Nevada and tell Hispanics that this is Race War: Trump has insulted your illegal alien Mexican compadres and therefore has insulted Florida’s Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Hispanic Miscellaneous, who must stand shoulder to shoulder with Mexican illegal aliens and tell the White Man (i.e., Donald Trump) where he can put it. Similarly, Nevada’s Filipinos will be told over and over by Hillary’s people that they are Honorary Hispanics and Official Nonwhites.

This inevitable Democratic race-baiting strategy will be countered by Trump attempting to win Florida and Nevada on personal compatibility: Start spreading the news, Florida and Nevada are Trump kind of states!

Similarly, Hillary will try to turn Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan into a black-white race war, while Trump will try to win on industrial policy: how about some tariffs on automobiles and auto parts so everybody, black and white, can finally get a job?

Recall that in 2012 a key issue was that Obama had bailed out GM in 2009 while Romney had written an op-ed implying a laissez-faire line toward the bedrock company of the Rust Belt.

Trump won’t make that mistake.

So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.

I don’t know how Trump will respond. If Trump is anything, he’s pro-black. He’s constantly being denounced as being anti-black, but with virtually no quotes to support that.

Who will win?

The odds favor the Democrats. But it’s been a crazy year …

 
Hide 175 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I tell you, if Trump puts Sanders on his ticket the election will be a walkover. Goodbye to Mrs Evil, and good riddance.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    How would Trump justify putting a "Communist" on his ticket?
  2. Trump’s father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump’s racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can’t stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump’s world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about “making Mexico pay”, or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran’s assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That’s why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama’s victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    • Disagree: BB753, Vendetta
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    0/10
    , @27 year old
    Oy vey, won't someone think of the 401k-Americans???
    , @The Millennial Falcon
    The birther thing will be reanimated by Hillary for sure - it's a two-fer: allows her to paint Trump as a bogeyman racist and a fringe kook.

    But Obama was so dominant among blacks - I don't think negative campaigning against Trump will be as potent a turnout engine as the chance to defend the incumbent first black president.

    Race I think will be less of a battleground than economic well-being.

    And that's where Hillary is going to break out the goodie bag to protect herself in the center. She's going to promise expansions of social security and other benefits for the hard-pressed working class. She's going to paint herself as the generous gramma to offset Trump's benevolent patriarch. She'll pooh-pooh his manufacturing renaissance dreams as unrealistic and concoct some kind of New Deal-y infrastructure program to put Americans back to work and build new schools, etc.

    She'll spend as much time painting Trump as delusional as she does trying to make him look racist. To offer herself as the rational one, the one who isn't promising imaginary and maybe dangerous revolutions but solid practical improvements for your daily life.

    But I think Trump's attacks will be more potent. He'll be able to hammer her on corruption and sticking up for the status quo just to keep the gravy train going. He'll be able to label her as the enabler and apologist of Washington fat cats just as she was an enabler and apologist for her husband.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    Trump has had contempt for black people for decades.... Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers.
     
    What is the correct number? And what percentage of black homicide victims are killed by whites other than police offiicers?

    I think Trump will do quite well at the polls with older black women, but probably not with younger male blacks. However a lot can change between now and the election, especially with Hillary Clinton being such a weak and unlikable candidate.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Trump sounds better and better!!
    , @Langley
    "Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers."

    Not quite that bad:

    http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

    , @celt darnell
    Well you've certainly persuaded me that Trump should be in the White House.
    , @TWS
    Are you always this poor at trolling?
    , @Nico
    Actually you may be on to something but I do think your position needs a number of nuances, which I don't have time to go into here. But if you are correct and if this election IS a referendum on amnesty, policing and prosecution, and if it does indeed pit the nonwhite electorate on the polar opposite side of Trump, then all that means is Thomas W. Chittum's "Civil War II" thesis was inevitable.
    , @PistolPete
    You pretty much laid out Hillary's talking points for the fall. Well done. You should probably apply for a job at her campaign
  3. North Carolina might be the hardest state for Trump to hold, don’t think he will take Virginia or the Wisconsin and Minnesota. Think he will take Florida pretty convincingly, few points ahead in polls there already. PA reaffirmed Trump has the blue collar whites but he needs to maintain enough of Romney’s one success, turnout and percentage of upper and middle class whites. You have to think Trump can suppress enough of the Democrat vote on corruption and the many foreign policy failings of Hillary. Unconvinced Trump can do the Presidential thing if the toys out of the pram after just two weeks of Trump’s efforts are true.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    PPP came out with a poll today with Trump tying HRC 44 44 in NC already. Trump will hold NC with a bigger margin than Romney.
  4. Demographically there’s no doubt that it’s a long shot for Trump

    But Hillary may very well overplay her hand with race baiting and talks of structural racism. It’s so obviously ugly and unlike saint Obama she can’t pull off that lofty detached-from-it-all aura.

  5. The real issue looking ahead to the GE is what becomes of those Bernie voters (an enormous 700,000+ in PA).

    Trump/Sanders 2016.

    They’ll mop the floor.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Is a Trump/Webb ticket out of the question?
  6. But in a close race, I don’t see Trump having to play defense anywhere. The only one of the four GOP states on the list he might have more problems with than the generic Republican nominee is Missouri, and the state has been getting redder and redder each election regardless.

    I don’t see how. Romney, a Mormon, won Missouri, whose history with the Mormon church is less than charitable, so easily, that it was a foregone conclusion that he would, and Obama conceded Missouri to Romney from the get-go, neither side had media buys in Missouri. I don’t see anything that we Show-Mers would find more distasteful about Trump than Romney. Maybe the only reason that Trump’s margin over HRC in the state will be narrower is that HRC has vestigial links to two states that border Missouri, Illinois and Arkansas.

  7. 1) I’m very skeptical about Hillary’s ability to run a race war like Obama. She’s clownishly bad at it for starters. More important, black women have never responded to her. Black women are not feminists. They are black women first and last.

    2) Clinton appears to be preparing to run on the vagina issue with a slight lesbian hint to it. Her commercials here were the old girl power nonsense from yesteryear. Last night she was screeching about how she will make sure women get more money if she is elected president.

    3) The thing with Hillary is she is not competent. People forget how she managed to lose in 2008. People forget how she bungled health care in 92-93. The woman is a serial bungler. She should be running the race war strategy, but instead will run the vagina monologue, which would have worked eight years ago maybe.

    4) We tend to think trends last forever. Basing this election on the old model is probably not a good idea. It was not so long ago when Republicans could win states in the Northeast. This red-blue thing is new and probably temporary.

    • Agree: Travis
  8. Steve, if Hillary ramps up the anti-white race-baiting, it is going to mobilize the white vote for Trump to an incredible extent, perhaps like never before seen. The silent majority’s hearts are hardening to PC, to Islam, to blacks acting out and rioting, to cuckoldry. And we’ve been through this analysis before – turnout, and white voting percentage.

    Also, any PUA or even someone who knows some theory of game, understands that grovelling Jeb-like will not get anyone to like or respect you. It only loses you your self-respect. So if anything, I see various non-white voting percentages and turnouts staying similar, and maybe favoring Trump somewhat.

  9. iSteve,

    I do read from a number of sources that Romney may/would have been a viable choice for president. However, although I’m republican to the core, I and apparently many others could not stomach the idea of a Wall Street M&A millionaire becoming president. What were the Republican Party leadership thinking? Wanting radical change, I voted for Obama (truly the biggest political mistake of my long life).

    I still want radical change in this country … although certainly not in the direction that Obama took us: cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-Western Civilization, pro-abortion, pro-Black, pro-immigration, pro-FGLBTQ etc., Islamic-friendly … and owned by Wall Street.

    The choices this round are very similar with Trump advocating radical change in the direction of protecting our national interests, our nation’s economy, and traditional morality and cultural values. The difference is that he definitely is NOT owned by Wall Street, which will remove that dreadful taint for me and hopefully other voters.

    The Hildebeast will carry forth Obama’s legacy, including having sold out to Wall Street. In the war for selling her version of radical change, it will be interesting to see if one of Hillary’s major themes to unite the fringe will be “bathroom choice” for trannies (not even decimal dust as a percent of the population) who have not yet bothered to get their “gender confirmation” operations.

    OT: University of Missouri fundraising has apparently taken a big hit since the “Black protests” in November 2015. The Missouri legislature is also holding back funds and freshman applications are down, which will further reduce state funding. All of this was predictable and predicted.

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-fundraising-takes-million-hit-in-december-as/article_ed7cfd5b-3b3e-5b18-95d9-f2945ac51172.html

    • Replies: @Nico

    I still want radical change in this country … although certainly not in the direction that Obama took us: cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-Western Civilization, pro-abortion, pro-Black, pro-immigration, pro-FGLBTQ etc., Islamic-friendly … and owned by Wall Street.
     
    It's very important to keep in mind that the "changes" in the sociopolitical landscape were preceded by many decades by an intelligentsia that was already there. The only way to reverse anything is to replace that intelligentsia.
  10. I’d wager that Steve’s observations are thoroughly parsed by team Trump.

  11. Yeah the hate Trump gets from blacks is a bit absurd. Is it because he doesn’t tolerate BLM nonsense? Because they think his “racism” towards illegals and Muslims must transfer to blacks?

    Given the hate he gets from blacks he might as well go full anti-black. Then again that might be unwise since everyone who might approve of such a stance probably already supports Trump. But it’s hard to watch videos like this and think he should still go easy on blacks:

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Yeah the hate Trump gets from blacks is a bit absurd. Is it because he doesn’t tolerate BLM nonsense? Because they think his “racism” towards illegals and Muslims must transfer to blacks?"

    African Americans who hate Donald Trump have the mentality that if you insult one Nonwhite group, you are basically insulting all Nonwhite groups. That is why the majority of African Americans are extremely offended by the things he says about Muslims, Latinos, and China.

    It's the all of us Nonwhites are in this thing together mentality. Also don't forget that a lot of African Americans have converted to Islam.

    We are basically at a point where there are only two races in America, White and Nonwhite. The immigrant groups coming to America are all assimilating into Negro victimhood status, they are not culturally assimilating into Whiteness.

    The 2020 U.S census should reflect this new America and only have to two racial categories, White and Nonwhite.

    Ming Na Wen, America Ferrera, Huma Abedin, and Serena Williams should all check the same racial box because they are all in this together.

    If you census combine Black, Brown, and Yellow together it makes them even more politically powerful than ever, they would be unstoppable. They would be like The Avengers, The Suicide Squad, The Watchmen, The X-Men and The Justice League all combined.

    NONWHITE POWER.

  12. “…must stand shoulder to shoulder with Mexican illegal aliens…”

    Ain’t gonna happen. There is an incredibly deep fissure there. Outright hostility. Living in Wyoming, I know lots of Latinos. If you ask them about illegals, be prepared to hear a lot of racial slurs. It’s a real eye opener.

  13. Bernie Sanders whites would rather drink poison in some cult-like mass suicide before voting for BadWhite Trump.

    Sorry :( :(

    Hillary’s got this locked.

    • Replies: @anon
    Some of them but most are effectively Trump supporters who have been brain washed by the media (owned by the cheap labor lobby) into thinking that opposing the cheap labor lobby is racist.

    Their entire economic future depends on them waking up so a lot of them will.
    , @Marty T
    In polls, about a third of Sanders voters are not planning to back the shrew.
  14. That’s a solid breakdown. I actually think Trump can get a sizeable amount of Bernie voters.

    Trump will have trouble with mobilizing the establishment. The well is already poisoned in a few states (eg. Wisconsin). Mainly getting those white suburban women.

  15. Scott Adams, the guy who does Dilbert, is predicting Trump will beat Hillary in a landslide. But then he predicted Trump would win the Republican nomination in a landslide too, so maybe it doesn’t know what he is talking about?

    Keep in mind that eighty percent of the workforce are what the Department of Labor describes as non-supervisory hourly wage workers. Trump’s promise to clamp down on mass low-skilled immigration and start restricting trade with low-wage countries like China and Mexico ought to resonate with a lot of them. Of course that is assuming that Trump is a talented salesmen who can communicate these two issues in language a 4th grader can understand. So again it looks like Scott Adams doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    Hillary’s demonstrated good judgment on issues like Libya, Syria, and illegal immigration should give her a clear advantage going forward.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Well he has won the primary in a landslide. This hasn't been a close race in months.
    , @Ed
    There are signs of rebellion against the narrative even among the so call educated, tolerant set.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-execs-receive-threats-employees-143631990.html

    Then of course there's the Mizzou fiasco & employees at Facebook defacing Black Lives Matter at an in-house mural.

    The other shoe to drop on the elites will come in the general & it will be more shocking then the working class abandonment of GOPe.
  16. Trump won every county and every Congressional district that voted yesterday.

    RI and CT break it down by towns, and Kasich’s only wins were:

    Barrington, Rhode Island
    West Hartford, Conn.
    Westport, Conn.
    New Canaan, Conn.

    Not all of CT is in yet, so he may take a few more.

    I presume these are all very well to do places. Which makes Kasich not winning Greenwich, Conn., strange.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The Donald's trade policies seem to me, as an ex derivatives guy, to present opportunities for arbitrage.
    , @Andrew
    "RI and CT break it down by towns, and Kasich’s only wins were"

    I've been looking at town wins in Pennsylvania by Kasich. So far its:

    Philadelphia City:
    Ward 9 (Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy)
    Wards 5, 8, 15, 24, 27, 30 (Center City/Fairmount/University City)

    Montgomery County
    Lower Merion Township
    Narberth Borough
    Bryn Athyn Borough

    Delaware County:
    Radnor Township
    Swarthmore Borough
    Rose Valley Borough

    Chester County:
    Easttown Township
    Tredyffrin Township

    Allegheny County:
    Mt. Lebanon Borough
    Sewickley Borough
    Fox Chapel Borough

    Kasich didn't win a single town in Bucks County. In fact, he only won a single precinct in the entire county, one section of Doylestown Borough (the wealthy county seat). He couldn't even win his home town of McKees Rocks

    Bryn Athyn (a strange, wealthy town run by the Swedenborgian Church) is the only reliably Republican voting district on this list. Radnor/Easttown/Tredffrin is mixed or perhaps leans Republicans in a good year.

    Lower Merion-Narberth-Radnor-Easttown-Tredyffrin is the famous and very wealthy Main Line

    Swarthmore is a wealthy liberal college town.

    Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy and Center City are the wealthiest areas in the city by a wide margin. Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy are two neighborhoods in the city with huge mansions and large estates nestled into a city park. Center City is like a mini-Manhattan of apartments and brownstones. Chestnut Hill last leaned Republican around 1980.

    The boroughs in Allegheny that he won are the rich elitist towns in the county.

    I haven't tried checking the whole state, but my gut tells me that those are probably the only ten communities he could carry out of 2,561 townships, boroughs, and cities in Pennsylvania. Pretty pathetic.
  17. Total turnout, Presidential primary, Pennsylvania.

    Republicans

    2008: 815,364
    2012: 810,934
    2016: 1,573,338

    Democrats

    2008: 2,333,462
    2016: 1,652,863

    Number cruching:

    R16/R8 = 1.93. D16/D8 = 0.71. D8/R8 = 2.86. D16/R16 = 1.05. And in 2008, with a 2.86 multiple in the primaries, John McCain was thought to have a credible chance to win PA in the fall vs Obama. In contrast, Trump is going into the fall in PA only facing 1.05 winds to his face instead of 2.86.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Noticed that last night. PA is in play.

    Another nugget is that MD Dem primary was nearly 50% black. This would suggest a defection or minimal interest among Dem whites in the state. Of course MD is solidly blue but if this trend is carried over to redder states well watch out.
    , @E. Harding
    Obama got more votes than Romney in the effectively uncontested Pennsylvania primary. Impressive for a candidate who wasn't even facing a challenge.

    Yes, Trump's victory in PA was impressive, and makes it quite likely Trump could win Pennsylvania in the general.

    Trump needs to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. VA has the felon vote unleashed.
  18. Republican turnout was very high in Pennsylvania, Trump received almost 900,000 votes. in 2012 Romney got just 460,000 votes. it is not logical to compare the republican votes cast verse the democrats since it was a closed primary, and PA has millions more registered Democrats.

    looking forward to November we should examine previous elections, especially pre-Obama, because Hillary will not attract the same enthusiasm as Obama.

    2000 Bush lost to Gore by 204,000 votes (2.28 million votes for Bush)
    2004 Bush lost to Kerry by 145,000 (2.79 million votes for Bush)
    2008 McCain lost by 600,000 (2.65 million votes for McCain)
    2012 Romney lost by 310,00 (2.61 million votes for Romney)

    while Bush obtained 11% of the Black vote in PA. Romney got just 6% of the Black vote and 57% of the white vote. In November with Trump on the ticket, he will attract more White and Black voters, Hillary will be in trouble. Trump needs just 58% of the white vote and 10% of the black vote to win PA. Pennsylvania still has almost no Mexicans, but there are 200,000 Puerto Ricans.

    in 1992 Clinton won PA with 45% of the vote, Ross Perot hurt Bush by getting 18% of the vote in PA, over 900,000 votes. this also bodes well for Trump.

    Pennsylvania has more retirees than any state except Florida. thus the democrats always scare seniors in PA about the republican plan to cut social security. this will not be a factor in 2016.

  19. The #nevertrump gopE lost to trump in their own primary but they can still sink him in the general.

    We’ve never seen a nominee campaign without the support of his own party. It would be an ugly blowout.

    Then theyll try to blame trump and intimidate voters into never again daring to oppose the establishment.

    personally I think this would be an insane move that could actually destroy the GOP but I’m not putting insanity past them.

  20. @Luke Lea
    Scott Adams, the guy who does Dilbert, is predicting Trump will beat Hillary in a landslide. But then he predicted Trump would win the Republican nomination in a landslide too, so maybe it doesn't know what he is talking about?

    Keep in mind that eighty percent of the workforce are what the Department of Labor describes as non-supervisory hourly wage workers. Trump's promise to clamp down on mass low-skilled immigration and start restricting trade with low-wage countries like China and Mexico ought to resonate with a lot of them. Of course that is assuming that Trump is a talented salesmen who can communicate these two issues in language a 4th grader can understand. So again it looks like Scott Adams doesn't know what he is talking about.

    Hillary's demonstrated good judgment on issues like Libya, Syria, and illegal immigration should give her a clear advantage going forward.

    Well he has won the primary in a landslide. This hasn’t been a close race in months.

  21. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Perhaps Hillary can get Oprah on board as her VP … all those black felons in NC who can vote now have got to support Oprah, surely.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I thought it was Virginia governor McAuliffe who issued the executive order restoring voting rights to felons. The NC governor is a Republican, and such an act seems unlikely for him.
  22. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, certain ahhh, agitators are calling for the opportunity to work more hours:

    Workers, clergy and community leaders gathered at San Jose City Hall yesterday morning to turn in nearly 35,000 signatures to put the Opportunity to Work Initiative on the November ballot in the nation’s tenth largest city. This moment represents a major milestone in the campaign for this initiative – the first of its kind in the country – which would help part-time workers get access to more work hours so that their paychecks can cover the bills and put food on the table. The Opportunity to Work Initiative would require large businesses in San Jose to offer more work hours to their current workers before hiring new staff.

    Surely, they should be presenting those signatures to Obama. Better yet, why not just use the ballot box in November to elect Trump?

  23. Ed says:
    @Luke Lea
    Scott Adams, the guy who does Dilbert, is predicting Trump will beat Hillary in a landslide. But then he predicted Trump would win the Republican nomination in a landslide too, so maybe it doesn't know what he is talking about?

    Keep in mind that eighty percent of the workforce are what the Department of Labor describes as non-supervisory hourly wage workers. Trump's promise to clamp down on mass low-skilled immigration and start restricting trade with low-wage countries like China and Mexico ought to resonate with a lot of them. Of course that is assuming that Trump is a talented salesmen who can communicate these two issues in language a 4th grader can understand. So again it looks like Scott Adams doesn't know what he is talking about.

    Hillary's demonstrated good judgment on issues like Libya, Syria, and illegal immigration should give her a clear advantage going forward.

    There are signs of rebellion against the narrative even among the so call educated, tolerant set.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-execs-receive-threats-employees-143631990.html

    Then of course there’s the Mizzou fiasco & employees at Facebook defacing Black Lives Matter at an in-house mural.

    The other shoe to drop on the elites will come in the general & it will be more shocking then the working class abandonment of GOPe.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    Of course there is no elaboration on who threatened to do what (and to whom). Is this a threat like "I'm going to quit over this bullshit" or a threat like "your children will disappear and the bodies will never be found"?

    It's curious that they would not include that info, as it would add a lot of juice to the story. Especially if it was the latter. So it seems likely that this guy is just plain lying and nobody made any threats at all.
    , @candid_observer
    From your link:

    Speaking at the PUSHTech 2020 conference on Saturday with Reverend Jesse Jackson in San Francisco, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich admitted that not everyone at his tech firm has been excited about the recent efforts to increase the proportion of underrepresented minorities at the company and in the industry at large.

    People worry that as a white man, you’re kind of under siege to a certain extent,” Krzanich said. “There’s been a bit of resistance. We’ve even had a few threats and things like that on some of our leadership team around our position on diversity and inclusion. We stand up there and just remind everybody it’s not an exclusive process. We’re not bringing in women or African-Americans or Hispanics in exclusion to other people. We’re actually just trying to bring them in and be a part of the whole environment.”
     
    It's almost a certainty that a very high proportion of Intel's employees are Asian. Asians, especially East Asians, incline more toward the hardware side of technology than the software side.

    Do anyone really believe that the "white men" at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?
    , @Jack D
    This is laughable. What does the "rebellion" consist of (if it is real at all)? Mildly negative blog posts? Anonymous post-it notes?

    In Philadelphia during WWII, the local transit company decided that they could expand their workforce and reduce upward pressure on wages by promoting some of the black car cleaners to trolley drivers. The up until then all white (mostly Irish) trolley drivers did not like this idea and went on strike. People needed to get to work to build warplanes & such so the Federal government had to take over the transit system and staff it with troops. THAT was a rebellion.

    The entire industrial history of America consists of (white) employers betraying their (white) American workforce by importing non-whites and foreigners who were willing to work cheap - Southern blacks, Chinese to build the railroads, etc.

  24. I don’t think the “shadow race” thing is very meaningful by itself. The question is, where will the Sanders, Kasich and Cruz voters go in the general? Will they stay with their party, switch sides or stay home? And what about the large # of people who did not vote in the primary at all but will vote in the general?

    Some of the Sanders vote consists of the forgotten blue collar whites that Trump also appeals to, but a lot of it was the younger crowd. These will either switch to Hillary or maybe stay home, but they are not likely to vote for Trump. Overall, Hillary gets more of the Bernie voters (and there are more of them then there were Cruz and Kasich voters) than Trump.

    Trump can probably convert most of the Cruz voters – Hillary is not their kind of girl.

    Hillary actually has a shot at some of the Kasich voters, especially female ones, as she will try to pull her campaign closer to the center once Bernie is out of the way.

    IF Hillary has a stroke between now and November or gets indicted, then all bets are off, but as matters stand now it doesn’t look good for Trump, on paper at least. But Trump has defied a lot of predictions.

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts. In order for the Republicans to win again they either need (1) an earth shaking candidate – someone like Trump but maybe with fewer negatives than Trump or (2) an earth shaking event that discredits Democrat rule (such as another Iran hostage crisis). (2) is made even harder because the media is so in the tank for Democrats – anything bad that happens is automatically not the Democrats fault anyway – it’s the fault of Bush or the Republican Congress or some movie maker – anybody but the Democrats. The Tee Vee tells you that it’s not the Democrat’s fault, who are you to argue that it is?

    • Replies: @AP

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts
     
    Actually, given Hillary's high level of non-likability, this would be the perfect year for a generic Republican candidate that doesn't irritate or frighten anybody. The problem for Trump is that he somehow manages to be even more unlikable among the general public than Hillary.

    I suspect many Kasich voters will go to Hillary, as will Bernie's SWPL voters. Trump will get some of Bernie's blue collar voters and most of Cruz's voters though the number of the latter will depend in part on factors such as what the Koch brothers, WSJ etc. do. Trump may do a little better than Romney, but Romney was up against gifted politician and salesman Obama, not the awful and grating Clinton.

    Given that Trump managed to hijack one of the two main parties of the most powerful and important country on Earth, he can't be totally counted out. But it looks like his nomination would be handing over an easily-winnable election to a party led by someone who otherwise would have little chance of winning.
    , @AnotherDad
    Good analysis Jack.

    I think my only caveat would be that I think Trump has a bit more *possibility* with some of the young (white) Sanders voters. Not the full on virtue signaling SWPLs--they've left normal spectrum of the human race and are off self-flagellating on racial matters like some 14th century penitent--but normal college students who think things are screwed up ... because they don't have any job offers.

    Trump needs to hit on exactly that note.
    -- Hey things are screwed up ... you don't go to college to work as a barista.
    -- American jobs should go to ... American kids. Hit the Disney H1B nastiness hard.
    -- Hillary thinks things are peachy. Her Wall Street backers want things just the way they are ... and she's their gal.
    --> If you want things to keep on going how they are going ... vote Hillary. If you want to have a job when you graduate, want to be able to eventually be able to buy a house, get married (one for the young women) and have a family ... i'm you're guy. I'll make America great again.

    Note, i'm less saying that Trump picks up bales and bales of young Bernie voters--those folks voting in the primaries skew more toward the politicized Ds. But I think the young *demographic* that Bernie has resonated with is reachable for Trump. There's just nothing "new" or "exciting" or "changey" about Hillary. Hillary is same old shit.

    Of course, whether Trump has the ability to hit this message well--will even bother to make the effort--we'll see.

    ~~
    All that said, I think the election is going to come down to Trumps ability to keep Republican and independent white women on board. He has to get his message out there, and hit Hillary hard, while acting "presidential" and not being an a*hole. (Not his strong suit.) If most independent married white women vote for Hillary because she has a vagina and the media has told them Trump is Hitler and they are herd following bovines ... then Trump is toast. But if Trump can articulate a vision that resonates as "things will be better for my kids and their kids if America gets a dose of Trump" ... then he'll be the man.
    , @AnotherDad
    Good analysis Jack.

    I think my only caveat would be that I think Trump has a bit more *possibility* with some of the young (white) Sanders voters. Not the full on virtue signaling SWPLs--they've left normal spectrum of the human race and are off self-flagellating on racial matters like some 14th century penitent--but normal college students who think things are screwed up ... because they don't have any job offers.

    Trump needs to hit on exactly that note.
    -- Hey things are screwed up ... you don't go to college to work as a barista.
    -- American jobs should go to ... American kids. Hit the Disney H1B nastiness hard.
    -- Hillary thinks things are peachy. Her Wall Street backers want things just the way they are ... and she's their gal.
    --> If you want things to keep on going how they are going ... vote Hillary. If you want to have a job when you graduate, want to be able to eventually be able to buy a house, get married (one for the young women) and have a family ... i'm you're guy. I'll make America great again.

    Note, i'm less saying that Trump picks up bales and bales of young Bernie voters--those folks voting in the primaries skew more toward the politicized Ds. But I think the young *demographic* that Bernie has resonated with is reachable for Trump. There's just nothing "new" or "exciting" or "changey" about Hillary. Hillary is same old shit.

    Of course, whether Trump has the ability to hit this message well--will even bother to make the effort--we'll see.

    ~~
    All that said, I think the election is going to come down to Trumps ability to keep Republican and independent white women on board. He has to get his message out there, and hit Hillary hard, while acting "presidential" and not being an a*hole. (Not his strong suit.) If most independent married white women vote for Hillary because she has a vagina and the media has told them Trump is Hitler and they are herd following bovines ... then Trump is toast. But if Trump can articulate a vision that resonates as "things will be better for my kids and their kids if America gets a dose of Trump" ... then he'll be the man.
  25. Ed says:
    @countenance
    Total turnout, Presidential primary, Pennsylvania.

    Republicans

    2008: 815,364
    2012: 810,934
    2016: 1,573,338

    Democrats

    2008: 2,333,462
    2016: 1,652,863

    Number cruching:

    R16/R8 = 1.93. D16/D8 = 0.71. D8/R8 = 2.86. D16/R16 = 1.05. And in 2008, with a 2.86 multiple in the primaries, John McCain was thought to have a credible chance to win PA in the fall vs Obama. In contrast, Trump is going into the fall in PA only facing 1.05 winds to his face instead of 2.86.

    Noticed that last night. PA is in play.

    Another nugget is that MD Dem primary was nearly 50% black. This would suggest a defection or minimal interest among Dem whites in the state. Of course MD is solidly blue but if this trend is carried over to redder states well watch out.

  26. “The odds favor the Democrats. But it’s been a crazy year …”

    The fact that the odds favor the Democrats is indicative that permanent demographic and cultural change has already altered the electorate. Ordinarily, after eight or nine years of a lack-luster economy, the party that has held the white-house for two terms would be vulnerable. The fact that Hillary is a contender – especially given her repellant personality – is a sign that some things have changed irrevocably.

    • Replies: @Mark2
    Anything's revocable. Well, almost.
  27. AP says:
    @Jack D
    I don't think the "shadow race" thing is very meaningful by itself. The question is, where will the Sanders, Kasich and Cruz voters go in the general? Will they stay with their party, switch sides or stay home? And what about the large # of people who did not vote in the primary at all but will vote in the general?

    Some of the Sanders vote consists of the forgotten blue collar whites that Trump also appeals to, but a lot of it was the younger crowd. These will either switch to Hillary or maybe stay home, but they are not likely to vote for Trump. Overall, Hillary gets more of the Bernie voters (and there are more of them then there were Cruz and Kasich voters) than Trump.

    Trump can probably convert most of the Cruz voters - Hillary is not their kind of girl.

    Hillary actually has a shot at some of the Kasich voters, especially female ones, as she will try to pull her campaign closer to the center once Bernie is out of the way.

    IF Hillary has a stroke between now and November or gets indicted, then all bets are off, but as matters stand now it doesn't look good for Trump, on paper at least. But Trump has defied a lot of predictions.

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts. In order for the Republicans to win again they either need (1) an earth shaking candidate - someone like Trump but maybe with fewer negatives than Trump or (2) an earth shaking event that discredits Democrat rule (such as another Iran hostage crisis). (2) is made even harder because the media is so in the tank for Democrats - anything bad that happens is automatically not the Democrats fault anyway - it's the fault of Bush or the Republican Congress or some movie maker - anybody but the Democrats. The Tee Vee tells you that it's not the Democrat's fault, who are you to argue that it is?

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts

    Actually, given Hillary’s high level of non-likability, this would be the perfect year for a generic Republican candidate that doesn’t irritate or frighten anybody. The problem for Trump is that he somehow manages to be even more unlikable among the general public than Hillary.

    I suspect many Kasich voters will go to Hillary, as will Bernie’s SWPL voters. Trump will get some of Bernie’s blue collar voters and most of Cruz’s voters though the number of the latter will depend in part on factors such as what the Koch brothers, WSJ etc. do. Trump may do a little better than Romney, but Romney was up against gifted politician and salesman Obama, not the awful and grating Clinton.

    Given that Trump managed to hijack one of the two main parties of the most powerful and important country on Earth, he can’t be totally counted out. But it looks like his nomination would be handing over an easily-winnable election to a party led by someone who otherwise would have little chance of winning.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    How did Trump "hijack" the Republican Party?

    Do we misguided little people not have the right to vote for delegates who promise to vote for him ? Do we not have the right to enforce the delegates' promises?

    Trump has garnered over THREE MILLION MORE votes than the nearest contender, Cruz. That's "hijacking"?????
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I have quite a few Democrat acquaintances in Pennsylvania who never bothered to switch their registration to the GOP but still generally vote Republican in general elections, voted for Bernie solely to spite Hillary, and plan to vote for Trump in the fall.

    I suspect that actually quite a large amount of the Bernie voters in Pennsylvania are like them.

    Look for that to show up in the general election results.

    • Replies: @Bad memories
    Thank you for your anecdata.
  29. I predict Trump will annihilate Hillary in the fall. She has a glass jaw and will be broken by Trump punching her for six straight months.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "I predict Trump will annihilate Hillary in the fall. She has a glass jaw and will be broken by Trump punching her for six straight months."
     
    People have been predicting the downfall of one or both of the Clinton elders for years. People have been predicting Hillary wearing an orange jump suit for years.

    Yet they keep sliding on by, while their former friends and associates (anyone who could put them away) end up wearing the orange jump suits or dead.
  30. So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.

    Which’ll make her oh-so-popular among whites. Just like those notoriously overpaid workers want her to continue importing Mexicans to help the boss keep his payroll down.

    Trump’s two issues have a nice symmetry, that balance out the states he has to win. Either a state has a weak economy, and fewer immigrants (Penn., Ohio, Michigan, New York [upstate]), so he emphasizes trade. Or a state has a (relatively) good economy (California, Texas, Virginia, Florida, New York [downstate]), thus inundated with immigrants, and he can emphasize population growth and change. They dovetail.

    A hedge fund of ideas, of sorts.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    LA resident here. Please don't include California among States with a "relatively good economy."
  31. I don’t have time to do it now, and this would be a more interesting and relevant project after all the primaries are done. But, look at my post above, comparing D8/R8 to D16/R16 in Pennsylvania.

    Imagine a spreadsheet showing the D8/R8 and D16/R16 ratios for every primary and high turnout caucus state, then show another ratio of (D8/R8)/(D16/R16), that is, the ratio of two ratios, showing how dramatic the trend has been state by state. For instance, PA’s answer would be 2.86/1.05, or 2.72. Missouri’s is 2.11.

    Caveat: You have to make sure you’re comparing apples to apples. A few states did primaries in 2008 but switched to caucuses in 2016, and vice-versa. Also, leave out low turnout caucus states.

    I bet you’ll find the highest such ratios are in the slippery six states.

    • Replies: @countenance
    I know replying to myself is tacky, but I just thought of another flaw in my proposal.

    In 2008, John McCain threw the TKO early (and by technical knockout, I mean winning a crucial primary state that, while it did not put him over the top mathematically, it gathered so much momentum behind him such that everyone else gave up and opposing the front runner became futile), when McCain won Florida. (By contrast, I don't think Trump threw the TKO until New York last week.) However, in 2008, the Democrat primaries and caucuses went on until the very end, and neither HRC nor Obama won enough delegates based on primary/caucus voting alone to win; it was only after until they were all done, and everyone saw Obama won more voting-based delegates than HRC, that the party superdelegates fell behind Obama. So this means after Florida until the season finale in 2008, Republicans had no motivation to turnout, Democrats did.

    This may skew the ratio to very high numbers in some states, including Pennsylvania, which, as I recall, was as late in the 2008 season as it is here in 2016. And it may make my whole project proposal a non-starter and not worth doing.

  32. “So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.”

    It was going to be a hot summer regardless, so this is very bad news unless you’re a firearm salesman.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.”

    It was going to be a hot summer regardless, so this is very bad news unless you’re a firearm salesman."

    Hildabeast is running as the anti-law & order candidate, so if Dindu Nuffins violently riot this summer, this increases the chances of Donald Trump winning the presidency. A lot of moderate middle of the road White voters are Liberal on things like Gay marriage abortion, but they are Conservative on the issue of Negro crime. If they see that Hildabeast will just let the hood run amok if she is POTUS, they will be turned off from voting for her.

  33. @Ed
    There are signs of rebellion against the narrative even among the so call educated, tolerant set.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-execs-receive-threats-employees-143631990.html

    Then of course there's the Mizzou fiasco & employees at Facebook defacing Black Lives Matter at an in-house mural.

    The other shoe to drop on the elites will come in the general & it will be more shocking then the working class abandonment of GOPe.

    Of course there is no elaboration on who threatened to do what (and to whom). Is this a threat like “I’m going to quit over this bullshit” or a threat like “your children will disappear and the bodies will never be found”?

    It’s curious that they would not include that info, as it would add a lot of juice to the story. Especially if it was the latter. So it seems likely that this guy is just plain lying and nobody made any threats at all.

  34. “Defending all of Romney’s states will be a challenge for Trump’s ability to appear Presidential. ”

    Not really. The bulk of Mitt’s support came from the South, where as of now, every single Southern state (WVA and DE haven’t voted yet) have gone solidly for Trump, so it’s unlikely that they won’t vote for him in the GE.

    “People put Romney down a lot, but he wasn’t a terrible candidate. At minimum, he seemed Presidential.”

    The problem was, Romney was an undefined national candidate a la Dukakis in ’88. Therefore, a reasonably somewhat popular enough incumbent like Obama could easily define him, or at least wait for the candidate to put his foot in it and make a mistake on his own, which he did. As Romney mostly never went on the offensive but played more a defensive full court press game, hoping not to make a mistake, eventually he made several gaffes which tended to make Obama’s larger point that Romney was an out of touch globalist who couldn’t be trusted with the keys to the White House.

    And Romney is not Donald Trump in that Trump has had across the board national name recognition for over 35yrs. How many people outside corporate America (man in the street as in Letterman/Kimmel/Leno’s old skits interviewing ‘have you ever heard of…”), how many ordinary folks had heard of Mitt Romney in 1990? Whereas most adults and practically everyone over the age of 18 had definitely heard of Donald Trump in 1990.

    In one sense, the early part of Romney’s ’12 campaign for the GE post-primaries was simply to drum up name recognition for his candidacy and attempt to make his name or brand better known among ordinary independent voters. Trump obviously will not have that problem.

    Ironically, a more apt comparison to Romney’s campaign would be Gerald Ford in ’76. Both were relatively unknown entities (certainly Ford was before 1974). And Ford received 35 more electoral votes than did Romney in his ’76 GE.

    For the life of us, it would be hard pressed for ordinary folks today right now to outline the major issues that Romney ran on in his presidential campaigns. I mean, seriously. What are the most compelling issues that Mitt Romney really ran on in ’12? If you were to poll most adult voters, I’ll wager that over 85% couldn’t come up with one or two things.

    And YET….they probably will remember the “47% etc” soundbite, especially since it went viral. The reason being, is that he wasn’t well defined at that point. With that mistake he not only lost electoral votes but he also helped define himself or confirm in many independent ordinary voters minds the stereotype that he was after all an out of touch plutocratic globalist who’d ship jobs off to China with a snap of his fingers. The one clear stand he did take, on the auto bailout, also hurt his chances with independent voters as it confirmed in their minds that he really didn’t care about their futures.

    Fred Reed’s recent column on Capitalism “I got mine, screw you” is unfortunately what most adult voters if pressed, would say applies to the likes of Mitt Romney (and also to Jeb!) Ironically it doesn’t seem to apply to “The People’s Billionaire” Trump, and that’s very telling.

    And that tends to be the main point: Since Romney was not well defined nationally before receiving the nomination, such gaffes as “47 percent, etc” as well as the auto bailout issue, did major damage to his candidacy over the long haul in the GE with independent voters, because it fit the image of him as an out of touch globalist plutocrat who didn’t care about the interests of anyone but the top one percent. Trump by contrast has made several times more gaffes during the campaign season, but they haven’t directly hurt his candidacy. Also, Trump hasn’t directly gaffed up on major policy issues that ordinary folks tend to care about. He’s not going to make a similar kind of “47%, etc” gaffe, or, say, an anti-auto bailout type of quote. Can anyone imagine Romney stating “Know what? We need to look after our infrastructure. Our roads are in poor condition, etc and we need to rebuild them”. Or on imminent domain? Or on building a wall? Can you see Mitt standing up and promising to build a wall on the southern border? Please.

    Also, Hillary is losing badly among the total white male vote, which isn’t a good thing for her. If all she has left at this juncture is the race card, it still won’t be enough to overcome her deficit. Also, unlike in ’08 and ’12, when blacks solidly gave Obama the vote (more than their usual 90% support of the Democratic candidate), Hillary is a woman (some black males might have a problem voting for a woman candidate. Rapper TI expressed such concerns about it in an interview with VIBE or some hip hop centered interview). Many blacks may simply choose to sit this one out. After all, Trump isn’t known as a racist and Hillary isn’t black (she was also in the White House when her husband signed three strikes and out, welfare reform, etc) and thus can’t really be trusted to look out for blacks’ interests.

    And, if Hillary may not win the married woman vote, or white males in general, how exactly is she going to carry certain states that contain more whites (we’re seeing how she’s doing in her own party primaries and she hasn’t won very many of them).

    ca.70% the total white vote, and its not going to go for Hillary.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "And Romney is not Donald Trump in that Trump has had across the board national name recognition for over 35yrs. How many people outside corporate America (man in the street as in Letterman/Kimmel/Leno’s old skits interviewing ‘have you ever heard of…”), how many ordinary folks had heard of Mitt Romney in 1990? Whereas most adults and practically everyone over the age of 18 had definitely heard of Donald Trump in 1990."

    Most Americans have never even heard of Mitt Romney in 2010, let alone 1990.

    "And that tends to be the main point: Since Romney was not well defined nationally before receiving the nomination, such gaffes as “47 percent, etc” as well as the auto bailout issue, did major damage to his candidacy over the long haul in the GE with independent voters, because it fit the image of him as an out of touch globalist plutocrat who didn’t care about the interests of anyone but the top one percent. Trump by contrast has made several times more gaffes during the campaign season, but they haven’t directly hurt his candidacy. Also, Trump hasn’t directly gaffed up on major policy issues that ordinary folks tend to care about. He’s not going to make a similar kind of “47%, etc” gaffe, or, say, an anti-auto bailout type of quote. Can anyone imagine Romney stating “Know what? We need to look after our infrastructure. Our roads are in poor condition, etc and we need to rebuild them”. Or on imminent domain? Or on building a wall? Can you see Mitt standing up and promising to build a wall on the southern border? Please."

    Mitt Romney comes off as a rich cuck snob. Donald Trump comes off as a wealthy man with an alpha male blue collar attitude, just like Kid Rock and The Duck Dynasty crew.
  35. @countenance
    I don't have time to do it now, and this would be a more interesting and relevant project after all the primaries are done. But, look at my post above, comparing D8/R8 to D16/R16 in Pennsylvania.

    Imagine a spreadsheet showing the D8/R8 and D16/R16 ratios for every primary and high turnout caucus state, then show another ratio of (D8/R8)/(D16/R16), that is, the ratio of two ratios, showing how dramatic the trend has been state by state. For instance, PA's answer would be 2.86/1.05, or 2.72. Missouri's is 2.11.

    Caveat: You have to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. A few states did primaries in 2008 but switched to caucuses in 2016, and vice-versa. Also, leave out low turnout caucus states.

    I bet you'll find the highest such ratios are in the slippery six states.

    I know replying to myself is tacky, but I just thought of another flaw in my proposal.

    In 2008, John McCain threw the TKO early (and by technical knockout, I mean winning a crucial primary state that, while it did not put him over the top mathematically, it gathered so much momentum behind him such that everyone else gave up and opposing the front runner became futile), when McCain won Florida. (By contrast, I don’t think Trump threw the TKO until New York last week.) However, in 2008, the Democrat primaries and caucuses went on until the very end, and neither HRC nor Obama won enough delegates based on primary/caucus voting alone to win; it was only after until they were all done, and everyone saw Obama won more voting-based delegates than HRC, that the party superdelegates fell behind Obama. So this means after Florida until the season finale in 2008, Republicans had no motivation to turnout, Democrats did.

    This may skew the ratio to very high numbers in some states, including Pennsylvania, which, as I recall, was as late in the 2008 season as it is here in 2016. And it may make my whole project proposal a non-starter and not worth doing.

    • Replies: @Perplexed
    I don't have the numbers at hand, but Hillary won more votes than O. That's why the roll call skipped over California--it would have shown Hillary ahead. Then she surrendered, literally steered out by Schumer, and called for ending the roll call and nominating O. by acclamation.

    I hope Trump brings this up--in betraying her voters, she gave us all the O. disaster. And she wants to be our latex salesman?
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    This is another good point. In 2008, Barack Obama was a relatively unheard of candidate. John McCain by comparison had been in the Senate for nearly 25 yrs by that point. He had his nomination sowed up first, literally, by around Ground Hog day, or three full months before Obama won his party's nomination. It was McCain's to lose and he didn't disappoint. As soon as he won his nomination by early February, McCain should have started blasting at Obama over and over and over, making the point that this far left fringe candidate would be bad for America, couldn't be trusted on the national stage, would be literally in over his head, etc. Instead he waited and literally did nothing, period. All that time to start defining Obama in the eyes of independent voters was wasted. And then of course, McCain didn't disappoint and confirmed why he didn't receive the nomination back in '00; because he was a lackluster candidate who couldn't run a decent campaign if it was handed to him on a silver platter. One could make the case that McCain truly didn't believe that Obama would ultimately win the Democratic nomination and was more prepared for Hillary. If Hillary had been the nominee, McCain figured all he had to do was just coast, (he originally wanted to choose his friend Lieberman as his running mate). All he would've had to do was say "Hillary. Do you guys want another Clinton in the White House?" And basically he figured the anti-Clinton dislike would come out in full support of him and perhaps drag along some independent voters and he'd be in. Seriously, more convinced than ever that McCain didn't see Obama as major competition and underestimated him badly. He honestly thought he was going to face Hillary in the GE. When Obama won the nomination he was totally unprepared and had already wasted all that time not defining him for voters.

    Say what you will about Bill Clinton. He was one of the best presidential campaigners in recent memory. Trump may have some of that in him (especially when compared to the GOP presidential candidates post-Reagan). Bill Clinton did set the standard fairly high for a candidate attempting to run a first rate campaign. Namely, you can't allow anyone to define you and if you make a gaffe, don't let it derail your campaign and give your rival the necessary ammo to define you for the voters.

    Honestly. Obama could've been beaten in '08 if the GOP had nominated the right candidate. Unfortunately, the roster wasn't very deep and the starter flubbed it badly, incompetently. Just cause you're a multi term incumbent US Senator doesn't mean you know diddly about running a national campaign.

  36. @Ed
    There are signs of rebellion against the narrative even among the so call educated, tolerant set.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-execs-receive-threats-employees-143631990.html

    Then of course there's the Mizzou fiasco & employees at Facebook defacing Black Lives Matter at an in-house mural.

    The other shoe to drop on the elites will come in the general & it will be more shocking then the working class abandonment of GOPe.

    From your link:

    Speaking at the PUSHTech 2020 conference on Saturday with Reverend Jesse Jackson in San Francisco, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich admitted that not everyone at his tech firm has been excited about the recent efforts to increase the proportion of underrepresented minorities at the company and in the industry at large.

    People worry that as a white man, you’re kind of under siege to a certain extent,” Krzanich said. “There’s been a bit of resistance. We’ve even had a few threats and things like that on some of our leadership team around our position on diversity and inclusion. We stand up there and just remind everybody it’s not an exclusive process. We’re not bringing in women or African-Americans or Hispanics in exclusion to other people. We’re actually just trying to bring them in and be a part of the whole environment.”

    It’s almost a certainty that a very high proportion of Intel’s employees are Asian. Asians, especially East Asians, incline more toward the hardware side of technology than the software side.

    Do anyone really believe that the “white men” at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    One further point about this idiot CEO at Intel.

    There is something truly vicious about a CEO of a company smearing his own employees as racists and bigots. I'm sure any number of the employees who have a problem with trying to introduce obviously less competent workers into their midst are themselves major contributors to the technical work Intel performs.

    And this miserable, self-important, moralizing CEO calls them out as racists and bigots?

    What kind of creep does something like that?
    , @Daniel Williams

    Do anyone really believe that the “white men” at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?
     
    I would. Orientals smell funny up close—they'll annihilate a shared microwave oven reheating cooked dog and the like—and the chattering noises that pass as their language can be supremely annoying. Honestly, now that the railroad's finished, I don't know why we keep them around.

    (Hat tip to my main man Officer Lai, currently being eviscerated for the crime of having a sense of humor in SF.)
  37. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years."

    9 out of the 10 most wanted fugitives in Texas have Spanish last names. Last time I checked, Texas is not 90 percent Hispanic.
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

    Hispanics punch way above their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the Southwest.

    What was the pro-open borders Ron Unz smoking when he said Hispanic crime is a myth.

  38. The WSJ has gone quiet today…not allowing any reader comments on any articles today. Very strange, seems like they are in mourning , they have realized the fantasy of a contested election were delusional.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The Grauniad did the same thing on the criminal State lies on the State Murders at at Hillsborough.

    not one of ten pieces allows comment.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-inquests-jury-says-96-victims-were-unlawfully-killed
  39. On the one hand, I tend to agree with Steve that Hillary seems to have the advantage at this point. Mostly I base this on the facts that the national polls show her ahead, and both she and Trump are pretty well known entities at this point.

    On the other hand, this really is a new, even revolutionary, political moment. Trump represents a out-of-the-box political figure, appealing to instincts and needs of many American voters who have gone unheard for over a generation. The pattern of his successes simply doesn’t match up well with all previous Republican candidates. Now I think that in general he will tend to win those states which Republicans always win, and will tend to be competitive where Republicans have been competitive. But I do expect that the ultimate pattern of exactly where he succeeds may well prove quite surprising given historical trends. He may well win in a number of states that were never won by a Republican when they lost certain other states Trump will in fact lose.

    We don’t yet have a clear idea of what the political environment will be like when, finally, Trump and Clinton face off. This will represent the clash between a very new political vision and the most established of all establishment figures. Trump has been portrayed — not wholly unreasonably — as a wild man. He really will test the willingness of voters to plunk down for a very unknown, and seemingly unsafe, quantity. Whether they do so will depend both on his ability to appear safer than he’s been depicted, and the level of voters’ revulsion toward the establishment and its perfect incarnation in Hillary Clinton.

    I do think the debates between Trump and Hillary will be an eye-opener for many voters. It will become quickly apparent that Trump is no usual Republican when he defends entitlements, and attacks Hillary for supporting, and even instigating, destructive, pointless military adventures in the ME. At that point, the heavy attacks he’s received from the Republican establishment will make him seem genuinely free of the anti-worker bias of standard-issue Republicans.

  40. @Mr. Anon
    "The odds favor the Democrats. But it’s been a crazy year …"

    The fact that the odds favor the Democrats is indicative that permanent demographic and cultural change has already altered the electorate. Ordinarily, after eight or nine years of a lack-luster economy, the party that has held the white-house for two terms would be vulnerable. The fact that Hillary is a contender - especially given her repellant personality - is a sign that some things have changed irrevocably.

    Anything’s revocable. Well, almost.

  41. @candid_observer
    From your link:

    Speaking at the PUSHTech 2020 conference on Saturday with Reverend Jesse Jackson in San Francisco, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich admitted that not everyone at his tech firm has been excited about the recent efforts to increase the proportion of underrepresented minorities at the company and in the industry at large.

    People worry that as a white man, you’re kind of under siege to a certain extent,” Krzanich said. “There’s been a bit of resistance. We’ve even had a few threats and things like that on some of our leadership team around our position on diversity and inclusion. We stand up there and just remind everybody it’s not an exclusive process. We’re not bringing in women or African-Americans or Hispanics in exclusion to other people. We’re actually just trying to bring them in and be a part of the whole environment.”
     
    It's almost a certainty that a very high proportion of Intel's employees are Asian. Asians, especially East Asians, incline more toward the hardware side of technology than the software side.

    Do anyone really believe that the "white men" at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?

    One further point about this idiot CEO at Intel.

    There is something truly vicious about a CEO of a company smearing his own employees as racists and bigots. I’m sure any number of the employees who have a problem with trying to introduce obviously less competent workers into their midst are themselves major contributors to the technical work Intel performs.

    And this miserable, self-important, moralizing CEO calls them out as racists and bigots?

    What kind of creep does something like that?

  42. “People put Romney down a lot, but he wasn’t a terrible candidate. “

    Well, I guess you could say that when he actually bothered to speak up except, perhaps, for that 47% thingy, but that was supposed to be off the record. It seemed at times like Romney was afraid to say anything negative about Obama for fear of being called a racist. I’m one of those people who like to vote ‘for’ someone or something, but I have no qualms about voting ‘against’ something that is bad for me/us. I’m sure I am not alone.

  43. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    0/10

  44. @wiseguy
    I predict Trump will annihilate Hillary in the fall. She has a glass jaw and will be broken by Trump punching her for six straight months.

    “I predict Trump will annihilate Hillary in the fall. She has a glass jaw and will be broken by Trump punching her for six straight months.”

    People have been predicting the downfall of one or both of the Clinton elders for years. People have been predicting Hillary wearing an orange jump suit for years.

    Yet they keep sliding on by, while their former friends and associates (anyone who could put them away) end up wearing the orange jump suits or dead.

  45. @Anonymous
    I have quite a few Democrat acquaintances in Pennsylvania who never bothered to switch their registration to the GOP but still generally vote Republican in general elections, voted for Bernie solely to spite Hillary, and plan to vote for Trump in the fall.

    I suspect that actually quite a large amount of the Bernie voters in Pennsylvania are like them.

    Look for that to show up in the general election results.

    Thank you for your anecdata.

  46. Steve:

    Articles like this are why I read you. Insightful. Last night I was a bit discouraged to add up the Hillary plus Bernie numbers and compare them to overall GOP numbers in Pennsylvania because I know how important the state is to Trump’s chances. But your take, and that of your commentators seems to be a little bit different. Good.

    Trump’s path is clearly through Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (and of course Florida). The Rust Belt. Not the all-white, wealthier, more rural meccas (Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota). Pennsylvania – as you correctly state – is key. We haven’t won it since 1988. It’s interesting to note that in most non-WSJ polls, Hillary is only at 44%-45%. Similarly, before the media and GOPe went crazy on Trump, polls in Michigan showed Hillary only at 42%-44% (I should add that Hillary polled poorly in Colorado too).

    Lets see what happens. Here I think we all know that Trump is the only one who can possibly beat Hillary (due to demographics). I am more optimistic than you on our chances

  47. @Ed
    There are signs of rebellion against the narrative even among the so call educated, tolerant set.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/intel-execs-receive-threats-employees-143631990.html

    Then of course there's the Mizzou fiasco & employees at Facebook defacing Black Lives Matter at an in-house mural.

    The other shoe to drop on the elites will come in the general & it will be more shocking then the working class abandonment of GOPe.

    This is laughable. What does the “rebellion” consist of (if it is real at all)? Mildly negative blog posts? Anonymous post-it notes?

    In Philadelphia during WWII, the local transit company decided that they could expand their workforce and reduce upward pressure on wages by promoting some of the black car cleaners to trolley drivers. The up until then all white (mostly Irish) trolley drivers did not like this idea and went on strike. People needed to get to work to build warplanes & such so the Federal government had to take over the transit system and staff it with troops. THAT was a rebellion.

    The entire industrial history of America consists of (white) employers betraying their (white) American workforce by importing non-whites and foreigners who were willing to work cheap – Southern blacks, Chinese to build the railroads, etc.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Come on you're expecting 20-30ish white men in offices to just fly off the handle like working class guys of yesteryear?

    For our purposes this mild form of protest is sufficient. Voting is still secret. So if we can detect even mild forms of protests to the reigning dogma on diversity it's useful to gaming out the election.
  48. @countenance
    I know replying to myself is tacky, but I just thought of another flaw in my proposal.

    In 2008, John McCain threw the TKO early (and by technical knockout, I mean winning a crucial primary state that, while it did not put him over the top mathematically, it gathered so much momentum behind him such that everyone else gave up and opposing the front runner became futile), when McCain won Florida. (By contrast, I don't think Trump threw the TKO until New York last week.) However, in 2008, the Democrat primaries and caucuses went on until the very end, and neither HRC nor Obama won enough delegates based on primary/caucus voting alone to win; it was only after until they were all done, and everyone saw Obama won more voting-based delegates than HRC, that the party superdelegates fell behind Obama. So this means after Florida until the season finale in 2008, Republicans had no motivation to turnout, Democrats did.

    This may skew the ratio to very high numbers in some states, including Pennsylvania, which, as I recall, was as late in the 2008 season as it is here in 2016. And it may make my whole project proposal a non-starter and not worth doing.

    I don’t have the numbers at hand, but Hillary won more votes than O. That’s why the roll call skipped over California–it would have shown Hillary ahead. Then she surrendered, literally steered out by Schumer, and called for ending the roll call and nominating O. by acclamation.

    I hope Trump brings this up–in betraying her voters, she gave us all the O. disaster. And she wants to be our latex salesman?

  49. @Robbie
    Bernie Sanders whites would rather drink poison in some cult-like mass suicide before voting for BadWhite Trump.

    Sorry :( :(

    Hillary's got this locked.

    Some of them but most are effectively Trump supporters who have been brain washed by the media (owned by the cheap labor lobby) into thinking that opposing the cheap labor lobby is racist.

    Their entire economic future depends on them waking up so a lot of them will.

  50. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Oy vey, won’t someone think of the 401k-Americans???

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Per one of his posts from April 6th, 2015, Merema is an African Muslim immigrant, not Jewish.
  51. @LondonBob
    North Carolina might be the hardest state for Trump to hold, don't think he will take Virginia or the Wisconsin and Minnesota. Think he will take Florida pretty convincingly, few points ahead in polls there already. PA reaffirmed Trump has the blue collar whites but he needs to maintain enough of Romney's one success, turnout and percentage of upper and middle class whites. You have to think Trump can suppress enough of the Democrat vote on corruption and the many foreign policy failings of Hillary. Unconvinced Trump can do the Presidential thing if the toys out of the pram after just two weeks of Trump's efforts are true.

    PPP came out with a poll today with Trump tying HRC 44 44 in NC already. Trump will hold NC with a bigger margin than Romney.

  52. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    The birther thing will be reanimated by Hillary for sure – it’s a two-fer: allows her to paint Trump as a bogeyman racist and a fringe kook.

    But Obama was so dominant among blacks – I don’t think negative campaigning against Trump will be as potent a turnout engine as the chance to defend the incumbent first black president.

    Race I think will be less of a battleground than economic well-being.

    And that’s where Hillary is going to break out the goodie bag to protect herself in the center. She’s going to promise expansions of social security and other benefits for the hard-pressed working class. She’s going to paint herself as the generous gramma to offset Trump’s benevolent patriarch. She’ll pooh-pooh his manufacturing renaissance dreams as unrealistic and concoct some kind of New Deal-y infrastructure program to put Americans back to work and build new schools, etc.

    She’ll spend as much time painting Trump as delusional as she does trying to make him look racist. To offer herself as the rational one, the one who isn’t promising imaginary and maybe dangerous revolutions but solid practical improvements for your daily life.

    But I think Trump’s attacks will be more potent. He’ll be able to hammer her on corruption and sticking up for the status quo just to keep the gravy train going. He’ll be able to label her as the enabler and apologist of Washington fat cats just as she was an enabler and apologist for her husband.

    • Replies: @Merema
    "But Obama was so dominant among blacks – I don’t think negative campaigning against Trump will be as potent a turnout engine as the chance to defend the incumbent first black president."


    Ya, you are right there, and that her more successful approach is to paint him as crazy.
  53. @Aeoli Pera
    "So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks."

    It was going to be a hot summer regardless, so this is very bad news unless you're a firearm salesman.

    “So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.”

    It was going to be a hot summer regardless, so this is very bad news unless you’re a firearm salesman.”

    Hildabeast is running as the anti-law & order candidate, so if Dindu Nuffins violently riot this summer, this increases the chances of Donald Trump winning the presidency. A lot of moderate middle of the road White voters are Liberal on things like Gay marriage abortion, but they are Conservative on the issue of Negro crime. If they see that Hildabeast will just let the hood run amok if she is POTUS, they will be turned off from voting for her.

  54. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Trump has had contempt for black people for decades…. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers.

    What is the correct number? And what percentage of black homicide victims are killed by whites other than police offiicers?

    I think Trump will do quite well at the polls with older black women, but probably not with younger male blacks. However a lot can change between now and the election, especially with Hillary Clinton being such a weak and unlikable candidate.

  55. Ed says:
    @Jack D
    This is laughable. What does the "rebellion" consist of (if it is real at all)? Mildly negative blog posts? Anonymous post-it notes?

    In Philadelphia during WWII, the local transit company decided that they could expand their workforce and reduce upward pressure on wages by promoting some of the black car cleaners to trolley drivers. The up until then all white (mostly Irish) trolley drivers did not like this idea and went on strike. People needed to get to work to build warplanes & such so the Federal government had to take over the transit system and staff it with troops. THAT was a rebellion.

    The entire industrial history of America consists of (white) employers betraying their (white) American workforce by importing non-whites and foreigners who were willing to work cheap - Southern blacks, Chinese to build the railroads, etc.

    Come on you’re expecting 20-30ish white men in offices to just fly off the handle like working class guys of yesteryear?

    For our purposes this mild form of protest is sufficient. Voting is still secret. So if we can detect even mild forms of protests to the reigning dogma on diversity it’s useful to gaming out the election.

  56. @countenance
    Total turnout, Presidential primary, Pennsylvania.

    Republicans

    2008: 815,364
    2012: 810,934
    2016: 1,573,338

    Democrats

    2008: 2,333,462
    2016: 1,652,863

    Number cruching:

    R16/R8 = 1.93. D16/D8 = 0.71. D8/R8 = 2.86. D16/R16 = 1.05. And in 2008, with a 2.86 multiple in the primaries, John McCain was thought to have a credible chance to win PA in the fall vs Obama. In contrast, Trump is going into the fall in PA only facing 1.05 winds to his face instead of 2.86.

    Obama got more votes than Romney in the effectively uncontested Pennsylvania primary. Impressive for a candidate who wasn’t even facing a challenge.

    Yes, Trump’s victory in PA was impressive, and makes it quite likely Trump could win Pennsylvania in the general.

    Trump needs to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. VA has the felon vote unleashed.

  57. @AP

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts
     
    Actually, given Hillary's high level of non-likability, this would be the perfect year for a generic Republican candidate that doesn't irritate or frighten anybody. The problem for Trump is that he somehow manages to be even more unlikable among the general public than Hillary.

    I suspect many Kasich voters will go to Hillary, as will Bernie's SWPL voters. Trump will get some of Bernie's blue collar voters and most of Cruz's voters though the number of the latter will depend in part on factors such as what the Koch brothers, WSJ etc. do. Trump may do a little better than Romney, but Romney was up against gifted politician and salesman Obama, not the awful and grating Clinton.

    Given that Trump managed to hijack one of the two main parties of the most powerful and important country on Earth, he can't be totally counted out. But it looks like his nomination would be handing over an easily-winnable election to a party led by someone who otherwise would have little chance of winning.

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?

    Do we misguided little people not have the right to vote for delegates who promise to vote for him ? Do we not have the right to enforce the delegates’ promises?

    Trump has garnered over THREE MILLION MORE votes than the nearest contender, Cruz. That’s “hijacking”?????

    • Replies: @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.
  58. “Trump will try to win on industrial policy: how about some tariffs on automobiles and auto parts so everybody, black and white, can finally get a job?”

    Blacks haven’t cared about working since the 1990s, at best. Most of them are perfectly happy and proud to take gibsmedats because slavery.

    The real question is: what percent of Crazy Bernie acolytes will refuse to vote for Mrs. B.J. Clinton and vice-versa in the general? My guess is no more than 2% because Adolph Donald Hitler Trump is an existential threat. Or something.

  59. @Reg Cæsar

    So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.
     
    Which'll make her oh-so-popular among whites. Just like those notoriously overpaid workers want her to continue importing Mexicans to help the boss keep his payroll down.

    Trump's two issues have a nice symmetry, that balance out the states he has to win. Either a state has a weak economy, and fewer immigrants (Penn., Ohio, Michigan, New York [upstate]), so he emphasizes trade. Or a state has a (relatively) good economy (California, Texas, Virginia, Florida, New York [downstate]), thus inundated with immigrants, and he can emphasize population growth and change. They dovetail.

    A hedge fund of ideas, of sorts.

    LA resident here. Please don’t include California among States with a “relatively good economy.”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Well, immigrants are still showing up in California. So they think the economy is "relatively good".

    Unlike Michigan, the only state to lose population in the last census.
  60. @Jack D
    I don't think the "shadow race" thing is very meaningful by itself. The question is, where will the Sanders, Kasich and Cruz voters go in the general? Will they stay with their party, switch sides or stay home? And what about the large # of people who did not vote in the primary at all but will vote in the general?

    Some of the Sanders vote consists of the forgotten blue collar whites that Trump also appeals to, but a lot of it was the younger crowd. These will either switch to Hillary or maybe stay home, but they are not likely to vote for Trump. Overall, Hillary gets more of the Bernie voters (and there are more of them then there were Cruz and Kasich voters) than Trump.

    Trump can probably convert most of the Cruz voters - Hillary is not their kind of girl.

    Hillary actually has a shot at some of the Kasich voters, especially female ones, as she will try to pull her campaign closer to the center once Bernie is out of the way.

    IF Hillary has a stroke between now and November or gets indicted, then all bets are off, but as matters stand now it doesn't look good for Trump, on paper at least. But Trump has defied a lot of predictions.

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts. In order for the Republicans to win again they either need (1) an earth shaking candidate - someone like Trump but maybe with fewer negatives than Trump or (2) an earth shaking event that discredits Democrat rule (such as another Iran hostage crisis). (2) is made even harder because the media is so in the tank for Democrats - anything bad that happens is automatically not the Democrats fault anyway - it's the fault of Bush or the Republican Congress or some movie maker - anybody but the Democrats. The Tee Vee tells you that it's not the Democrat's fault, who are you to argue that it is?

    Good analysis Jack.

    I think my only caveat would be that I think Trump has a bit more *possibility* with some of the young (white) Sanders voters. Not the full on virtue signaling SWPLs–they’ve left normal spectrum of the human race and are off self-flagellating on racial matters like some 14th century penitent–but normal college students who think things are screwed up … because they don’t have any job offers.

    Trump needs to hit on exactly that note.
    — Hey things are screwed up … you don’t go to college to work as a barista.
    — American jobs should go to … American kids. Hit the Disney H1B nastiness hard.
    — Hillary thinks things are peachy. Her Wall Street backers want things just the way they are … and she’s their gal.
    –> If you want things to keep on going how they are going … vote Hillary. If you want to have a job when you graduate, want to be able to eventually be able to buy a house, get married (one for the young women) and have a family … i’m you’re guy. I’ll make America great again.

    Note, i’m less saying that Trump picks up bales and bales of young Bernie voters–those folks voting in the primaries skew more toward the politicized Ds. But I think the young *demographic* that Bernie has resonated with is reachable for Trump. There’s just nothing “new” or “exciting” or “changey” about Hillary. Hillary is same old shit.

    Of course, whether Trump has the ability to hit this message well–will even bother to make the effort–we’ll see.

    ~~
    All that said, I think the election is going to come down to Trumps ability to keep Republican and independent white women on board. He has to get his message out there, and hit Hillary hard, while acting “presidential” and not being an a*hole. (Not his strong suit.) If most independent married white women vote for Hillary because she has a vagina and the media has told them Trump is Hitler and they are herd following bovines … then Trump is toast. But if Trump can articulate a vision that resonates as “things will be better for my kids and their kids if America gets a dose of Trump” … then he’ll be the man.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  61. @Jack D
    I don't think the "shadow race" thing is very meaningful by itself. The question is, where will the Sanders, Kasich and Cruz voters go in the general? Will they stay with their party, switch sides or stay home? And what about the large # of people who did not vote in the primary at all but will vote in the general?

    Some of the Sanders vote consists of the forgotten blue collar whites that Trump also appeals to, but a lot of it was the younger crowd. These will either switch to Hillary or maybe stay home, but they are not likely to vote for Trump. Overall, Hillary gets more of the Bernie voters (and there are more of them then there were Cruz and Kasich voters) than Trump.

    Trump can probably convert most of the Cruz voters - Hillary is not their kind of girl.

    Hillary actually has a shot at some of the Kasich voters, especially female ones, as she will try to pull her campaign closer to the center once Bernie is out of the way.

    IF Hillary has a stroke between now and November or gets indicted, then all bets are off, but as matters stand now it doesn't look good for Trump, on paper at least. But Trump has defied a lot of predictions.

    As Steve pointed out, Romney was really not bad as a generic Republican candidate, but generic Republican candidates are no longer capable of winning Presidential elections in generic years due to demographic shifts. In order for the Republicans to win again they either need (1) an earth shaking candidate - someone like Trump but maybe with fewer negatives than Trump or (2) an earth shaking event that discredits Democrat rule (such as another Iran hostage crisis). (2) is made even harder because the media is so in the tank for Democrats - anything bad that happens is automatically not the Democrats fault anyway - it's the fault of Bush or the Republican Congress or some movie maker - anybody but the Democrats. The Tee Vee tells you that it's not the Democrat's fault, who are you to argue that it is?

    Good analysis Jack.

    I think my only caveat would be that I think Trump has a bit more *possibility* with some of the young (white) Sanders voters. Not the full on virtue signaling SWPLs–they’ve left normal spectrum of the human race and are off self-flagellating on racial matters like some 14th century penitent–but normal college students who think things are screwed up … because they don’t have any job offers.

    Trump needs to hit on exactly that note.
    — Hey things are screwed up … you don’t go to college to work as a barista.
    — American jobs should go to … American kids. Hit the Disney H1B nastiness hard.
    — Hillary thinks things are peachy. Her Wall Street backers want things just the way they are … and she’s their gal.
    –> If you want things to keep on going how they are going … vote Hillary. If you want to have a job when you graduate, want to be able to eventually be able to buy a house, get married (one for the young women) and have a family … i’m you’re guy. I’ll make America great again.

    Note, i’m less saying that Trump picks up bales and bales of young Bernie voters–those folks voting in the primaries skew more toward the politicized Ds. But I think the young *demographic* that Bernie has resonated with is reachable for Trump. There’s just nothing “new” or “exciting” or “changey” about Hillary. Hillary is same old shit.

    Of course, whether Trump has the ability to hit this message well–will even bother to make the effort–we’ll see.

    ~~
    All that said, I think the election is going to come down to Trumps ability to keep Republican and independent white women on board. He has to get his message out there, and hit Hillary hard, while acting “presidential” and not being an a*hole. (Not his strong suit.) If most independent married white women vote for Hillary because she has a vagina and the media has told them Trump is Hitler and they are herd following bovines … then Trump is toast. But if Trump can articulate a vision that resonates as “things will be better for my kids and their kids if America gets a dose of Trump” … then he’ll be the man.

  62. @The most deplorable one
    On a related note, Ron Unz's reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years.

    “On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years.”

    9 out of the 10 most wanted fugitives in Texas have Spanish last names. Last time I checked, Texas is not 90 percent Hispanic.

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

    Hispanics punch way above their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the Southwest.

    What was the pro-open borders Ron Unz smoking when he said Hispanic crime is a myth.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Most wanted lists are top heavy with immigrants who have fled back to the old country.

    It's something worth keeping in mind when calculating arrest and imprisonment rates: immigrants are probably more likely to escape capture.

    , @The most deplorable one
    However, as Unz points out, a lot of that is due to the difference in age structure of the white population and the Hispanic population.
    , @BB753
    Didn't you know Ron Unz has become a Bernie Bro, man? He's smoking whatever the bros are passing around. And feeling the Bern.
  63. What’d you think of Trump’s foreign policy speech?

    Big enough deal to overshadow the announcement of the CarLyin’ Ted mega-ticket??

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That Lyin' Ted thing is stupid. Ted is more honest and consistent than most politicians, and WAY more honest, forthright and consistent than Trump. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary I may hold my nose and vote Trump, but I will consider it like making a hostage video tape...
  64. “He’s constantly being denounced as being anti-black, but with virtually no quotes to support that.”

    He said “All Lives Matter!” What could be more racist and anti-black than that?!

    • Replies: @Ed
    Blacks are the easiest group for the media to manipulate for reasons that have been discussed at length on this blog.
  65. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Trump sounds better and better!!

    • Replies: @JSM

    Trump sounds better and better!!
     
    That's what I was going to say!!
  66. @Simon in London
    "He’s constantly being denounced as being anti-black, but with virtually no quotes to support that."

    He said "All Lives Matter!" What could be more racist and anti-black than that?!

    Blacks are the easiest group for the media to manipulate for reasons that have been discussed at length on this blog.

  67. If Trump can get the massive number of non-voters who are also the losers in the New World Order to vote in November, he could win.; otherwise, it will me Madame President.

  68. @The most deplorable one
    Perhaps Hillary can get Oprah on board as her VP ... all those black felons in NC who can vote now have got to support Oprah, surely.

    I thought it was Virginia governor McAuliffe who issued the executive order restoring voting rights to felons. The NC governor is a Republican, and such an act seems unlikely for him.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Yeah, you got me. It was Virginia:

    http://www-origin-windstream-northraleigh.wral.com/virginia-governor-restores-voting-rights-to-200k-felons/15657118/
  69. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    “Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers.”

    Not quite that bad:

    http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

  70. @Jefferson
    "On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years."

    9 out of the 10 most wanted fugitives in Texas have Spanish last names. Last time I checked, Texas is not 90 percent Hispanic.
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

    Hispanics punch way above their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the Southwest.

    What was the pro-open borders Ron Unz smoking when he said Hispanic crime is a myth.

    Most wanted lists are top heavy with immigrants who have fled back to the old country.

    It’s something worth keeping in mind when calculating arrest and imprisonment rates: immigrants are probably more likely to escape capture.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Most wanted lists are top heavy with immigrants who have fled back to the old country.

    It’s something worth keeping in mind when calculating arrest and imprisonment rates: immigrants are probably more likely to escape capture."

    Hispanics still commit more crime than White Gringos and Asians.
  71. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Well you’ve certainly persuaded me that Trump should be in the White House.

  72. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Are you always this poor at trolling?

  73. @Steve Sailer
    Most wanted lists are top heavy with immigrants who have fled back to the old country.

    It's something worth keeping in mind when calculating arrest and imprisonment rates: immigrants are probably more likely to escape capture.

    “Most wanted lists are top heavy with immigrants who have fled back to the old country.

    It’s something worth keeping in mind when calculating arrest and imprisonment rates: immigrants are probably more likely to escape capture.”

    Hispanics still commit more crime than White Gringos and Asians.

  74. @AndrewR
    Yeah the hate Trump gets from blacks is a bit absurd. Is it because he doesn't tolerate BLM nonsense? Because they think his "racism" towards illegals and Muslims must transfer to blacks?

    Given the hate he gets from blacks he might as well go full anti-black. Then again that might be unwise since everyone who might approve of such a stance probably already supports Trump. But it's hard to watch videos like this and think he should still go easy on blacks:

    https://youtu.be/0u6A8lr3wZs

    “Yeah the hate Trump gets from blacks is a bit absurd. Is it because he doesn’t tolerate BLM nonsense? Because they think his “racism” towards illegals and Muslims must transfer to blacks?”

    African Americans who hate Donald Trump have the mentality that if you insult one Nonwhite group, you are basically insulting all Nonwhite groups. That is why the majority of African Americans are extremely offended by the things he says about Muslims, Latinos, and China.

    It’s the all of us Nonwhites are in this thing together mentality. Also don’t forget that a lot of African Americans have converted to Islam.

    We are basically at a point where there are only two races in America, White and Nonwhite. The immigrant groups coming to America are all assimilating into Negro victimhood status, they are not culturally assimilating into Whiteness.

    The 2020 U.S census should reflect this new America and only have to two racial categories, White and Nonwhite.

    Ming Na Wen, America Ferrera, Huma Abedin, and Serena Williams should all check the same racial box because they are all in this together.

    If you census combine Black, Brown, and Yellow together it makes them even more politically powerful than ever, they would be unstoppable. They would be like The Avengers, The Suicide Squad, The Watchmen, The X-Men and The Justice League all combined.

    NONWHITE POWER.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Ferrera married a tall handsome Aryan man. She don't hate whitey that much.

    But yes, the neoleft has done well at uniting the various ethnic minorities into a relatively universally anti-white force. Then we have Republican turncoats like Little Marco who go out of their way to play up their ethnic alienness, and Nimrata Haley who throw the heritage of their subjects under the bus in the name of Progress.

  75. So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.

    The Dems are going to make a lot of ads about Fred Trump’s arrest at a KKK event almost a hundred years ago.

    Speaking of things that have 100% name recognition in the Black community, what if Trump manages to get Oprah’s endorsement? There’s 1% or 2% chance of that, but as Steve says, it’s been a crazy year. I’m sure they’ve known each other for decades. They became famous at the same time – that’s like graduating in the same class. He might offer her the State Department, Defence, Justice. Anything but the VP slot would be fine by me if it helps him win. And it would.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "The Dems are going to make a lot of ads about Fred Trump’s arrest at a KKK event almost a hundred years ago."

    Because something that happened 100 years ago when nobody in the Left Wing media was even alive yet is more relevant to the Left Wing media than Benghazi which only happened 3 and a half years ago, as long as it helps Hildabeast and hurts The Donald.

  76. @The Millennial Falcon
    The birther thing will be reanimated by Hillary for sure - it's a two-fer: allows her to paint Trump as a bogeyman racist and a fringe kook.

    But Obama was so dominant among blacks - I don't think negative campaigning against Trump will be as potent a turnout engine as the chance to defend the incumbent first black president.

    Race I think will be less of a battleground than economic well-being.

    And that's where Hillary is going to break out the goodie bag to protect herself in the center. She's going to promise expansions of social security and other benefits for the hard-pressed working class. She's going to paint herself as the generous gramma to offset Trump's benevolent patriarch. She'll pooh-pooh his manufacturing renaissance dreams as unrealistic and concoct some kind of New Deal-y infrastructure program to put Americans back to work and build new schools, etc.

    She'll spend as much time painting Trump as delusional as she does trying to make him look racist. To offer herself as the rational one, the one who isn't promising imaginary and maybe dangerous revolutions but solid practical improvements for your daily life.

    But I think Trump's attacks will be more potent. He'll be able to hammer her on corruption and sticking up for the status quo just to keep the gravy train going. He'll be able to label her as the enabler and apologist of Washington fat cats just as she was an enabler and apologist for her husband.

    “But Obama was so dominant among blacks – I don’t think negative campaigning against Trump will be as potent a turnout engine as the chance to defend the incumbent first black president.”

    Ya, you are right there, and that her more successful approach is to paint him as crazy.

  77. The problem is that Trump is such an unkind, uncharitable, petty and thin-skinned sort. For example, everyone who endorses him is wonderful and saintly, and everyone who endorses everyone else is terrible or inconsequential. He acts like a baby.

  78. @Big Bill

    The real issue looking ahead to the GE is what becomes of those Bernie voters (an enormous 700,000+ in PA).
     
    Trump/Sanders 2016.

    They'll mop the floor.

    Is a Trump/Webb ticket out of the question?

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    This is my guess. I've seen some farcical names put out there (Susana Martinez, Mia Love?!) which is basically identity cucking so hard it registers on a seismograph.
  79. The women’s movement has a lot to lose if Hillary Clinton becomes President which is why there is such a sense of angst among feminists. Women benefit hugely from privlidges and double standards that are a hang over from the pre-women’s lib era. Achieving full equality means we have reached a time when those advantages no longer need to exist. If she is elected, she will spend much of her Presidency defending what she has and not advocating for more free stuff. The time for that is long past. Much the way Obama is leaving office as the most mediocre President in recent times, she will be just below that.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yes, of course, just as having a black President has means we have reached a time when affirmative action no longer needs to exist. All blacks recognize that and have demanded that their special privileges end immediately.
  80. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Anonymous
    I thought it was Virginia governor McAuliffe who issued the executive order restoring voting rights to felons. The NC governor is a Republican, and such an act seems unlikely for him.
  81. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Defending all of Romney’s states will be a challenge for Trump’s ability to appear Presidential. "

    Not really. The bulk of Mitt's support came from the South, where as of now, every single Southern state (WVA and DE haven't voted yet) have gone solidly for Trump, so it's unlikely that they won't vote for him in the GE.

    "People put Romney down a lot, but he wasn’t a terrible candidate. At minimum, he seemed Presidential."

    The problem was, Romney was an undefined national candidate a la Dukakis in '88. Therefore, a reasonably somewhat popular enough incumbent like Obama could easily define him, or at least wait for the candidate to put his foot in it and make a mistake on his own, which he did. As Romney mostly never went on the offensive but played more a defensive full court press game, hoping not to make a mistake, eventually he made several gaffes which tended to make Obama's larger point that Romney was an out of touch globalist who couldn't be trusted with the keys to the White House.

    And Romney is not Donald Trump in that Trump has had across the board national name recognition for over 35yrs. How many people outside corporate America (man in the street as in Letterman/Kimmel/Leno's old skits interviewing 'have you ever heard of…"), how many ordinary folks had heard of Mitt Romney in 1990? Whereas most adults and practically everyone over the age of 18 had definitely heard of Donald Trump in 1990.

    In one sense, the early part of Romney's '12 campaign for the GE post-primaries was simply to drum up name recognition for his candidacy and attempt to make his name or brand better known among ordinary independent voters. Trump obviously will not have that problem.

    Ironically, a more apt comparison to Romney's campaign would be Gerald Ford in '76. Both were relatively unknown entities (certainly Ford was before 1974). And Ford received 35 more electoral votes than did Romney in his '76 GE.

    For the life of us, it would be hard pressed for ordinary folks today right now to outline the major issues that Romney ran on in his presidential campaigns. I mean, seriously. What are the most compelling issues that Mitt Romney really ran on in '12? If you were to poll most adult voters, I'll wager that over 85% couldn't come up with one or two things.

    And YET….they probably will remember the "47% etc" soundbite, especially since it went viral. The reason being, is that he wasn't well defined at that point. With that mistake he not only lost electoral votes but he also helped define himself or confirm in many independent ordinary voters minds the stereotype that he was after all an out of touch plutocratic globalist who'd ship jobs off to China with a snap of his fingers. The one clear stand he did take, on the auto bailout, also hurt his chances with independent voters as it confirmed in their minds that he really didn't care about their futures.

    Fred Reed's recent column on Capitalism "I got mine, screw you" is unfortunately what most adult voters if pressed, would say applies to the likes of Mitt Romney (and also to Jeb!) Ironically it doesn't seem to apply to "The People's Billionaire" Trump, and that's very telling.

    And that tends to be the main point: Since Romney was not well defined nationally before receiving the nomination, such gaffes as "47 percent, etc" as well as the auto bailout issue, did major damage to his candidacy over the long haul in the GE with independent voters, because it fit the image of him as an out of touch globalist plutocrat who didn't care about the interests of anyone but the top one percent. Trump by contrast has made several times more gaffes during the campaign season, but they haven't directly hurt his candidacy. Also, Trump hasn't directly gaffed up on major policy issues that ordinary folks tend to care about. He's not going to make a similar kind of "47%, etc" gaffe, or, say, an anti-auto bailout type of quote. Can anyone imagine Romney stating "Know what? We need to look after our infrastructure. Our roads are in poor condition, etc and we need to rebuild them". Or on imminent domain? Or on building a wall? Can you see Mitt standing up and promising to build a wall on the southern border? Please.

    Also, Hillary is losing badly among the total white male vote, which isn't a good thing for her. If all she has left at this juncture is the race card, it still won't be enough to overcome her deficit. Also, unlike in '08 and '12, when blacks solidly gave Obama the vote (more than their usual 90% support of the Democratic candidate), Hillary is a woman (some black males might have a problem voting for a woman candidate. Rapper TI expressed such concerns about it in an interview with VIBE or some hip hop centered interview). Many blacks may simply choose to sit this one out. After all, Trump isn't known as a racist and Hillary isn't black (she was also in the White House when her husband signed three strikes and out, welfare reform, etc) and thus can't really be trusted to look out for blacks' interests.

    And, if Hillary may not win the married woman vote, or white males in general, how exactly is she going to carry certain states that contain more whites (we're seeing how she's doing in her own party primaries and she hasn't won very many of them).

    ca.70% the total white vote, and its not going to go for Hillary.

    “And Romney is not Donald Trump in that Trump has had across the board national name recognition for over 35yrs. How many people outside corporate America (man in the street as in Letterman/Kimmel/Leno’s old skits interviewing ‘have you ever heard of…”), how many ordinary folks had heard of Mitt Romney in 1990? Whereas most adults and practically everyone over the age of 18 had definitely heard of Donald Trump in 1990.”

    Most Americans have never even heard of Mitt Romney in 2010, let alone 1990.

    “And that tends to be the main point: Since Romney was not well defined nationally before receiving the nomination, such gaffes as “47 percent, etc” as well as the auto bailout issue, did major damage to his candidacy over the long haul in the GE with independent voters, because it fit the image of him as an out of touch globalist plutocrat who didn’t care about the interests of anyone but the top one percent. Trump by contrast has made several times more gaffes during the campaign season, but they haven’t directly hurt his candidacy. Also, Trump hasn’t directly gaffed up on major policy issues that ordinary folks tend to care about. He’s not going to make a similar kind of “47%, etc” gaffe, or, say, an anti-auto bailout type of quote. Can anyone imagine Romney stating “Know what? We need to look after our infrastructure. Our roads are in poor condition, etc and we need to rebuild them”. Or on imminent domain? Or on building a wall? Can you see Mitt standing up and promising to build a wall on the southern border? Please.”

    Mitt Romney comes off as a rich cuck snob. Donald Trump comes off as a wealthy man with an alpha male blue collar attitude, just like Kid Rock and The Duck Dynasty crew.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Exactly, but according to AP and other Cruz supporters, such men as Romney, McCain, W, Dole, etc. are the ideal GOP conservative candidate. Cruz will fit this mold over time. He wont make waves, he'll get along with the donors and globalists, and he really won't push for US interests either in the domestic front or on the world stage. All you have to do is ask yourself: How come if he's in the US Senate for nearly six yrs, Cruz never introduced legislation to build a wall on TX's border? I mean, the state he represents shares its southern border with Mexico so you'd think that it would have occurred to him to sponsor such legislation by now, IF the issue of immigration was paramount as he would have us all to believe during this primary season. Senator Jeff Sessions, a true conservative on many issues, especially on immigration isn't supporting Cruz, he has endorsed Trump instead. Wonder why? Doesn't Sessions know that Cruz is so Evangelical and for the majority of the GOP voters that issue alone is the most important one in this primary season? Doesn't Sessions understand that its far more important whether or not a religious Evangelical voter hears their candidate mouth the correct platitudes about the Lord? Doesn't Sessions get it?

    Uh, yes, Sessions does get it and that's why he's supporting Trump.

    Before Trump entered the race, which candidate(s) had made immigration one of their key issues? Which ones made immigration, trade, etc part and parcel of the most important issues that they were running on? Answer: No one. You could make a case that Jeb! had intended to make immigration a key issue of his campaign, just that he wasn't on the side of US interests and certainly wasn't going to publicly announce his true intentions on the issue during the campaign (much as his older brother W didn't directly campaign in '00 on immigration at all).

    And Jeb! is an ideal candidate for Cruz supporters. He represents what Cruz over time will become: beholden to the donors, top one percenters. Maybe an occasional odd position here and there (e.g. pro life, etc) but overall nothing that rocks the boat or upsets their global apple cart.

    But for some, Cruz is the ideal candidate because of his Evangelicalism, whatever that means in 2016. Perhaps for some it means, "go along with what the donors say. Don't challenge the Narrative, shut up, and be loyal GOP voters even if the candidates never give you what you think you're voting for." Much like how the Democrats view African-American voters, except unlike the GOP, they actually do give them something for their votes.
  82. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Jefferson
    "On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years."

    9 out of the 10 most wanted fugitives in Texas have Spanish last names. Last time I checked, Texas is not 90 percent Hispanic.
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

    Hispanics punch way above their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the Southwest.

    What was the pro-open borders Ron Unz smoking when he said Hispanic crime is a myth.

    However, as Unz points out, a lot of that is due to the difference in age structure of the white population and the Hispanic population.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "However, as Unz points out, a lot of that is due to the difference in age structure of the white population and the Hispanic population.

    It has to do with racial genes, not age. Asians in The U.S on average are younger than Whites, yet Asians still commit less crime than Whites.
  83. Wow, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, what can I say? Love between the uglies is the most beautiful love of all.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
  84. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @wiseguy
    What'd you think of Trump's foreign policy speech?

    Big enough deal to overshadow the announcement of the CarLyin' Ted mega-ticket??

    That Lyin’ Ted thing is stupid. Ted is more honest and consistent than most politicians, and WAY more honest, forthright and consistent than Trump. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary I may hold my nose and vote Trump, but I will consider it like making a hostage video tape…

  85. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    How did Trump "hijack" the Republican Party?

    Do we misguided little people not have the right to vote for delegates who promise to vote for him ? Do we not have the right to enforce the delegates' promises?

    Trump has garnered over THREE MILLION MORE votes than the nearest contender, Cruz. That's "hijacking"?????

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?

    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters, the same way Reagan brought Reagan Democrats to the GOP. This time, these voters are probably more working class and poorer than those Reagan Democrats of old. (My theory is that Steve Sailer himself is a former Reagan Democrat).
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising). For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP. See, you have to finish the sentence and not just leave that part out. Trump's father was an early major backer of Barry Goldwater. No one really questions Trump's fealty to the GOP; perhaps its time to let that go, turn the page, and look forward to trying to win the GE this coming November.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn't one person. That's not how it works. Cruz and Kasich isn't a single entity. Each of them, by themselves, have lost major big time to Trump, one on one, head to head. For the most part, William Jennings Bryan Cruz hasn't won very much outside the Mt Region/Plains. How about all the states that Kasich has won outside OH? Oh that's right, he hasnt won anything.

    Isn't it about winning? Shouldn't that count in the big picture? I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined. So what? Its about who wins the primaries. What is this nonsense about glorifying the second and third place (or first and second place losers). Let's try and focus on the winner, or the eventual nominee. This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That's not anyone's idea of a surefire winner. If her were all that, then he'd be leading the pack and not having to throw in the towel.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors. (His wife worked for Goldman Sachs) Who exactly former Goldman Sachs board member Kasich represents (other than those particular globalist interests) remains a mystery. Goldman Sachs is very well represented in this primary season, aren't they?

    In this campaign season, Kasich hasn't done anything special. He simply had the good luck to outlast the other 15 or 16 candidates.

    But now that Cruz has selected Carly Fiorina to be his "running mate" I'm sure that you now have your perfect ideal ticket.

    Question: In order to chose a VP running mate, doesn't one first have to actually you know, win the party's nomination? Just asking.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump's total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially. In other words, Trump handily beats both Cruz and Kasich with their vote totals combined. Did you not follow the results of NY; PA; MD; etc? If either candidate were all that and a bag of chips, then they'd clearly have received more total votes than the Donald. But they did not. Wonder why?

    Oh, of course, it's because Cruz didn't have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate...
     
    Reagan, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate...
    , @Andrew
    "Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders."

    Trump is a Republican and the vast majority of his voters are traditional registered Republican voters. All of his biggest victories (northeast, Florida, Arizona) have been in closed primaries where only Republicans can vote. To the extent Independents or Democrats are coming into the party, which is a good thing since it is not a closed club, it is because someone like Trump is running.

    "As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party."

    Cruz represents the Religious Right wing of the party, not small towns or Evangelicals. He is doing terribly in rural and small town areas across the country which are being won by Trump. Even in Wisconsin, Trump won most of the towns and rural areas. To date, Cruz's entire support could be summed up as Texas, Mormon's, and SE Wisconsin GOP Establishment.

    Kasich is the representative of business and usual/country club/green eyeshades Republicanism in the tradition of Eisenhower and Rockefeller.

    Post March 15 in a 3 man race, Trump has 2.555M votes and Cruz/Kasich/Others have 2.540 million votes.
  86. @Glossy
    So, Hillary is going to go to the mat on stoking anti-white racial hatred among blacks.

    The Dems are going to make a lot of ads about Fred Trump's arrest at a KKK event almost a hundred years ago.

    Speaking of things that have 100% name recognition in the Black community, what if Trump manages to get Oprah's endorsement? There's 1% or 2% chance of that, but as Steve says, it's been a crazy year. I'm sure they've known each other for decades. They became famous at the same time - that's like graduating in the same class. He might offer her the State Department, Defence, Justice. Anything but the VP slot would be fine by me if it helps him win. And it would.

    “The Dems are going to make a lot of ads about Fred Trump’s arrest at a KKK event almost a hundred years ago.”

    Because something that happened 100 years ago when nobody in the Left Wing media was even alive yet is more relevant to the Left Wing media than Benghazi which only happened 3 and a half years ago, as long as it helps Hildabeast and hurts The Donald.

  87. @Jefferson
    "On a related note, Ron Unz’s reasonable explanation for Hispanic Crime:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

    suggests that all those unaccompanied minors are going to be raising the crime rate over the next twenty years."

    9 out of the 10 most wanted fugitives in Texas have Spanish last names. Last time I checked, Texas is not 90 percent Hispanic.
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

    Hispanics punch way above their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the Southwest.

    What was the pro-open borders Ron Unz smoking when he said Hispanic crime is a myth.

    Didn’t you know Ron Unz has become a Bernie Bro, man? He’s smoking whatever the bros are passing around. And feeling the Bern.

  88. […] morning, Steve Sailer correctly pointed to Trump’s impressive performance in the Pennsylvania primary, which I predicted would be […]

  89. @Robbie
    Bernie Sanders whites would rather drink poison in some cult-like mass suicide before voting for BadWhite Trump.

    Sorry :( :(

    Hillary's got this locked.

    In polls, about a third of Sanders voters are not planning to back the shrew.

  90. @countenance
    Trump won every county and every Congressional district that voted yesterday.

    RI and CT break it down by towns, and Kasich's only wins were:

    Barrington, Rhode Island
    West Hartford, Conn.
    Westport, Conn.
    New Canaan, Conn.

    Not all of CT is in yet, so he may take a few more.

    I presume these are all very well to do places. Which makes Kasich not winning Greenwich, Conn., strange.

    The Donald’s trade policies seem to me, as an ex derivatives guy, to present opportunities for arbitrage.

  91. If Hildabeast was a White man, she would have been about as popular with Nonwhites, Feminazis, and Millennials as Lincoln Chafee.

    You can’t say Hildabeast is the female version of Barack Hussein Obama because she does not have an ounce of charisma. Hildabeast is Lincoln Chafee with a vagina. If we didn’t live in such an identity politics society, Bernie Sanders would have wiped the floor with her. But a high percentage of voters in The U.S are dying to elect a first woman president.

  92. @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters, the same way Reagan brought Reagan Democrats to the GOP. This time, these voters are probably more working class and poorer than those Reagan Democrats of old. (My theory is that Steve Sailer himself is a former Reagan Democrat).

    • Replies: @AP

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,
     
    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.
    , @Jon0815

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did.
     
    He might be taking away some white voters, but overall the polls show him doing worse with white voters vs. Hillary! than Romney did vs. Obama, because he's driving away more college-educated whites than he is attracting new blue-collar whites.
  93. @countenance
    I know replying to myself is tacky, but I just thought of another flaw in my proposal.

    In 2008, John McCain threw the TKO early (and by technical knockout, I mean winning a crucial primary state that, while it did not put him over the top mathematically, it gathered so much momentum behind him such that everyone else gave up and opposing the front runner became futile), when McCain won Florida. (By contrast, I don't think Trump threw the TKO until New York last week.) However, in 2008, the Democrat primaries and caucuses went on until the very end, and neither HRC nor Obama won enough delegates based on primary/caucus voting alone to win; it was only after until they were all done, and everyone saw Obama won more voting-based delegates than HRC, that the party superdelegates fell behind Obama. So this means after Florida until the season finale in 2008, Republicans had no motivation to turnout, Democrats did.

    This may skew the ratio to very high numbers in some states, including Pennsylvania, which, as I recall, was as late in the 2008 season as it is here in 2016. And it may make my whole project proposal a non-starter and not worth doing.

    This is another good point. In 2008, Barack Obama was a relatively unheard of candidate. John McCain by comparison had been in the Senate for nearly 25 yrs by that point. He had his nomination sowed up first, literally, by around Ground Hog day, or three full months before Obama won his party’s nomination. It was McCain’s to lose and he didn’t disappoint. As soon as he won his nomination by early February, McCain should have started blasting at Obama over and over and over, making the point that this far left fringe candidate would be bad for America, couldn’t be trusted on the national stage, would be literally in over his head, etc. Instead he waited and literally did nothing, period. All that time to start defining Obama in the eyes of independent voters was wasted. And then of course, McCain didn’t disappoint and confirmed why he didn’t receive the nomination back in ’00; because he was a lackluster candidate who couldn’t run a decent campaign if it was handed to him on a silver platter. One could make the case that McCain truly didn’t believe that Obama would ultimately win the Democratic nomination and was more prepared for Hillary. If Hillary had been the nominee, McCain figured all he had to do was just coast, (he originally wanted to choose his friend Lieberman as his running mate). All he would’ve had to do was say “Hillary. Do you guys want another Clinton in the White House?” And basically he figured the anti-Clinton dislike would come out in full support of him and perhaps drag along some independent voters and he’d be in. Seriously, more convinced than ever that McCain didn’t see Obama as major competition and underestimated him badly. He honestly thought he was going to face Hillary in the GE. When Obama won the nomination he was totally unprepared and had already wasted all that time not defining him for voters.

    Say what you will about Bill Clinton. He was one of the best presidential campaigners in recent memory. Trump may have some of that in him (especially when compared to the GOP presidential candidates post-Reagan). Bill Clinton did set the standard fairly high for a candidate attempting to run a first rate campaign. Namely, you can’t allow anyone to define you and if you make a gaffe, don’t let it derail your campaign and give your rival the necessary ammo to define you for the voters.

    Honestly. Obama could’ve been beaten in ’08 if the GOP had nominated the right candidate. Unfortunately, the roster wasn’t very deep and the starter flubbed it badly, incompetently. Just cause you’re a multi term incumbent US Senator doesn’t mean you know diddly about running a national campaign.

  94. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Pennsylvania always counts Philly first and rural last. It is always that way, so that early on it always looks like a Democrat landslide while it tightens up at the end.

    Id guess the easiest states for Trump to turn will be Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Florida, in that order. Hillary seems to be oddly unpopular in Colorado. Michigan is just too blue. The Upper Midwest is not great Trump country.

  95. @The most deplorable one
    However, as Unz points out, a lot of that is due to the difference in age structure of the white population and the Hispanic population.

    “However, as Unz points out, a lot of that is due to the difference in age structure of the white population and the Hispanic population.

    It has to do with racial genes, not age. Asians in The U.S on average are younger than Whites, yet Asians still commit less crime than Whites.

  96. @dearieme
    I tell you, if Trump puts Sanders on his ticket the election will be a walkover. Goodbye to Mrs Evil, and good riddance.

    How would Trump justify putting a “Communist” on his ticket?

  97. @Travis
    The WSJ has gone quiet today...not allowing any reader comments on any articles today. Very strange, seems like they are in mourning , they have realized the fantasy of a contested election were delusional.

    The Grauniad did the same thing on the criminal State lies on the State Murders at at Hillsborough.

    not one of ten pieces allows comment.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-inquests-jury-says-96-victims-were-unlawfully-killed

  98. @Prof. Woland
    The women's movement has a lot to lose if Hillary Clinton becomes President which is why there is such a sense of angst among feminists. Women benefit hugely from privlidges and double standards that are a hang over from the pre-women's lib era. Achieving full equality means we have reached a time when those advantages no longer need to exist. If she is elected, she will spend much of her Presidency defending what she has and not advocating for more free stuff. The time for that is long past. Much the way Obama is leaving office as the most mediocre President in recent times, she will be just below that.

    Yes, of course, just as having a black President has means we have reached a time when affirmative action no longer needs to exist. All blacks recognize that and have demanded that their special privileges end immediately.

  99. @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising). For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP. See, you have to finish the sentence and not just leave that part out. Trump’s father was an early major backer of Barry Goldwater. No one really questions Trump’s fealty to the GOP; perhaps its time to let that go, turn the page, and look forward to trying to win the GE this coming November.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person. That’s not how it works. Cruz and Kasich isn’t a single entity. Each of them, by themselves, have lost major big time to Trump, one on one, head to head. For the most part, William Jennings Bryan Cruz hasn’t won very much outside the Mt Region/Plains. How about all the states that Kasich has won outside OH? Oh that’s right, he hasnt won anything.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture? I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined. So what? Its about who wins the primaries. What is this nonsense about glorifying the second and third place (or first and second place losers). Let’s try and focus on the winner, or the eventual nominee. This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner. If her were all that, then he’d be leading the pack and not having to throw in the towel.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors. (His wife worked for Goldman Sachs) Who exactly former Goldman Sachs board member Kasich represents (other than those particular globalist interests) remains a mystery. Goldman Sachs is very well represented in this primary season, aren’t they?

    In this campaign season, Kasich hasn’t done anything special. He simply had the good luck to outlast the other 15 or 16 candidates.

    But now that Cruz has selected Carly Fiorina to be his “running mate” I’m sure that you now have your perfect ideal ticket.

    Question: In order to chose a VP running mate, doesn’t one first have to actually you know, win the party’s nomination? Just asking.

    • Replies: @AP

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).
     
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP
     
    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.
     
    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?
     
    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party's leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.
     
    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.
     
    The "winner" has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won't be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he'll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.
     
    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven't succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, "country club" Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.
  100. @candid_observer
    From your link:

    Speaking at the PUSHTech 2020 conference on Saturday with Reverend Jesse Jackson in San Francisco, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich admitted that not everyone at his tech firm has been excited about the recent efforts to increase the proportion of underrepresented minorities at the company and in the industry at large.

    People worry that as a white man, you’re kind of under siege to a certain extent,” Krzanich said. “There’s been a bit of resistance. We’ve even had a few threats and things like that on some of our leadership team around our position on diversity and inclusion. We stand up there and just remind everybody it’s not an exclusive process. We’re not bringing in women or African-Americans or Hispanics in exclusion to other people. We’re actually just trying to bring them in and be a part of the whole environment.”
     
    It's almost a certainty that a very high proportion of Intel's employees are Asian. Asians, especially East Asians, incline more toward the hardware side of technology than the software side.

    Do anyone really believe that the "white men" at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?

    Do anyone really believe that the “white men” at Intel are objecting to the many Asians in their midst?

    I would. Orientals smell funny up close—they’ll annihilate a shared microwave oven reheating cooked dog and the like—and the chattering noises that pass as their language can be supremely annoying. Honestly, now that the railroad’s finished, I don’t know why we keep them around.

    (Hat tip to my main man Officer Lai, currently being eviscerated for the crime of having a sense of humor in SF.)

  101. @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump’s total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially. In other words, Trump handily beats both Cruz and Kasich with their vote totals combined. Did you not follow the results of NY; PA; MD; etc? If either candidate were all that and a bag of chips, then they’d clearly have received more total votes than the Donald. But they did not. Wonder why?

    Oh, of course, it’s because Cruz didn’t have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.

    • Replies: @AP

    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump’s total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially.
     
    Cherry-picking the time when the race shifted to Trump's home turf is not an accurate picture of the race.

    As of now, Trump has 10,123,595 votes, Cruz 6,921,404 votes and 3,677,666 votes. Trump leads the party despite his enemies collectively having more votes than he does. Throw in Rubio's 3+ million votes and you see that Trump's supporters are even further outnumbered by traditional Republican/Establishment supporters. Yet, despite his supporters being outnumbered, despite being opposed by the party's very leadership, former democrat Trump is on the verge of taking control of this party. Quite impressive.

    Oh, of course, it’s because Cruz didn’t have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.
     
    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn't among the general public)?
  102. @RadicalCenter
    LA resident here. Please don't include California among States with a "relatively good economy."

    Well, immigrants are still showing up in California. So they think the economy is “relatively good”.

    Unlike Michigan, the only state to lose population in the last census.

  103. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    No doubt Neil Young would say that Ted Cruz should be president of these here United States.

  104. @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate…

    Reagan, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate…

    • Replies: @AP
    Reagan got almost 60% of the primary vote in 1980.

    Trump so far has only 39.7%, under half, which may be his high mark because his native Northeast just voted.

  105. Good point. The price Obama has paid for representing only his coalition of the fringes is that the only thing he will be remembered for is being the first black President. Calling him mediocre is damning by feint praise. Blacks won’t to relent on anything. They think he is the best President ever, but the rest of the country is different. People who think (hope) Trump is a one off will probably be saddened to know he is the new normal.

  106. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump's total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially. In other words, Trump handily beats both Cruz and Kasich with their vote totals combined. Did you not follow the results of NY; PA; MD; etc? If either candidate were all that and a bag of chips, then they'd clearly have received more total votes than the Donald. But they did not. Wonder why?

    Oh, of course, it's because Cruz didn't have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.

    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump’s total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially.

    Cherry-picking the time when the race shifted to Trump’s home turf is not an accurate picture of the race.

    As of now, Trump has 10,123,595 votes, Cruz 6,921,404 votes and 3,677,666 votes. Trump leads the party despite his enemies collectively having more votes than he does. Throw in Rubio’s 3+ million votes and you see that Trump’s supporters are even further outnumbered by traditional Republican/Establishment supporters. Yet, despite his supporters being outnumbered, despite being opposed by the party’s very leadership, former democrat Trump is on the verge of taking control of this party. Quite impressive.

    Oh, of course, it’s because Cruz didn’t have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.

    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn’t among the general public)?

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn’t among the general public)?
     
    Fiorina won the GOP Senate primary in CA with over 50% of the vote in a 3-person race. She never ran for governor of NY.
  107. @Reg Cæsar

    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate...
     
    Reagan, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate...

    Reagan got almost 60% of the primary vote in 1980.

    Trump so far has only 39.7%, under half, which may be his high mark because his native Northeast just voted.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    It is curious that you elided certain information:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents, and now that Trump has only two opponents he is getting Reagan-like percentages.
  108. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @AP
    Reagan got almost 60% of the primary vote in 1980.

    Trump so far has only 39.7%, under half, which may be his high mark because his native Northeast just voted.

    It is curious that you elided certain information:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents, and now that Trump has only two opponents he is getting Reagan-like percentages.

    • Replies: @AP

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents,
     
    Scroll down. Reagan had seven opponents in the primaries - Bush, Anderson, Howard Baker (senate minority leader), Bob Dole, Connolly (former TX governor), Crane and Stassen (former Minnesota governor). And yet most of them were forced out early and Reagan managed to get about 60%.

    Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf.

  109. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising). For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP. See, you have to finish the sentence and not just leave that part out. Trump's father was an early major backer of Barry Goldwater. No one really questions Trump's fealty to the GOP; perhaps its time to let that go, turn the page, and look forward to trying to win the GE this coming November.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn't one person. That's not how it works. Cruz and Kasich isn't a single entity. Each of them, by themselves, have lost major big time to Trump, one on one, head to head. For the most part, William Jennings Bryan Cruz hasn't won very much outside the Mt Region/Plains. How about all the states that Kasich has won outside OH? Oh that's right, he hasnt won anything.

    Isn't it about winning? Shouldn't that count in the big picture? I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined. So what? Its about who wins the primaries. What is this nonsense about glorifying the second and third place (or first and second place losers). Let's try and focus on the winner, or the eventual nominee. This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That's not anyone's idea of a surefire winner. If her were all that, then he'd be leading the pack and not having to throw in the towel.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors. (His wife worked for Goldman Sachs) Who exactly former Goldman Sachs board member Kasich represents (other than those particular globalist interests) remains a mystery. Goldman Sachs is very well represented in this primary season, aren't they?

    In this campaign season, Kasich hasn't done anything special. He simply had the good luck to outlast the other 15 or 16 candidates.

    But now that Cruz has selected Carly Fiorina to be his "running mate" I'm sure that you now have your perfect ideal ticket.

    Question: In order to chose a VP running mate, doesn't one first have to actually you know, win the party's nomination? Just asking.

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).

    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP

    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.

    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?

    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party’s leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.

    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won’t be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he’ll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.

    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean."

    With regards to staying clean, its a shame we can't expect the same from their beloved candidate [Per the Enquirer Story on Cruz. And after all, if it was accurate on BIll Clinton and John Edwards, then we have to allow that it could be accurate material on Cruz as well).

    But the rest is a demonstrable lie. Because IF it were the case, we would tend to see these Evangelical voters voting massively and overwhelmingly for the one clear cut candidate who professes to support their interests and is supposedly uh, "one of them". Let's take a closer look at the record.

    FACT: Most American Evangelicals reside in the South. It is known as the "Bible Belt" for a clear reason.

    FACT: Most white US Evangelical adults, particularly those that vote, tend to vote overwhelmingly for the GOP.

    FACT: Therefore, in these states known as the Southern region of the US, we can take a closer look to see how the majority of Evangelicals have voted, especially since all the Southern states have voted with the exception of WVA.

    And what do the facts show? WHICH candidate have the Evangelicals clearly and fairly decisively cast their votes for? Not Kasich. Not Jeb! Not even Rubio. Which candidate? Which one have the majority of these Evangelical voters voted for by a majority.

    HINT: It hasn't been Cruz. If it were, he'd have won more Southern states. People can argue and nit pick about irrelevant trivialities as in "It hasn't been 50%, blah yada blah blah" the fact remains, that they have clearly and decisively cast their vote for TRUMP. Its not even arguable, that the majority of Evangelicals now back Trump. Should he receive the GOP nomination, its clear that they'd support him.

    Mitt Romney was not an Evangelical. He wasn't even considered to be part of a mainstream Christian denomination. He also had a checkered past of not always supporting GOP conservative candidates. Yet he managed to carry the vast majority of these voters. If Evangelicals can vote (more or less) in massive numbers for a moderate globalist, there's no reason why they also can't turn out to vote for Donald Trump.

    Its clear that you don't appear to like his candidacy. That's fine. But at least in terms of consistency don't hide behind trivialities as in "Trump isn't really winning with 'real' conservatives (whatever that means). Or "Trump's not really winning; he's only winning because of newcomers into the primaries." So what? If all these conservative Evangelicals were so heart set on seeing beloved Cruz win the nomination, then its up to them to turn out and vote for him, to give the majority of their votes to Cruz.

    And guess what? They haven't done so. On paper, perhaps Cruz "represents" them; a more accurate word perhaps would be "symbolizes". But guess what? The bulk of Evangelicals, the majority of them reside in the South, have not voted for him. In reality, Cruz does not symbolize or represents the Evangelicals any more than Mitt Romney did.

    And, look at Cruz's choice of a "running mate" which makes no sense coming from a candidate who has just been mathematically eliminated from receiving the nomination. A "true" or "authentic" Evangelical would never ever choose a pro-choice, outsourcing, supportive of increasing illegal aliens, etc such as Carly Fiorina. At least Sarah Palin for all her faults was clearly understood to be a reliably conservative Evangelical. If Cruz simply couldn't find a conservative Evangelical GOP to be his….pseudo/quasi-VP (has't won the nomination and has been mathematically eliminated from it), wouldn't that suggest that for all his talk of being an Evangelical, its really just a campaigning crock. Answer: Yes. We're expected to believe that he couldn't find one single conservative Evangelical out there to run with him? Not one? Come come now.

    My question which you appear to want to avoid: Do Evangelicals ever vote for other things besides their bible? Do they ever, oh,….vote on the issues of trade, immigration, jobs? Never? Not ever? So, according to your template, they only vote for God, gays, abortion, social issues, etc but nary a peep from them on other things? Really?

    Evangelical. With regards to the '16 campaign season, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." As they continue to confound the "experts" and are voting (at least the majority of them) for Trump, and will continue to do so in the GE.

    , @Jack D

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.
     
    You are going to have to update your talking points. Cruz kept hammering on this because he thought that there was some chance that Trump wouldn't get to 50%. Now it looks as if he will, so time to change the subject. Hey, look over there, a female VP!

    But assume for the moment that Trump is one vote short of 50% on the first ballot. On the second ballot, the convention chooses say Jeb! Is this a good recipe for getting Trump voters to turn out in the fall and win the election?

    , @Andrew
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987

    I'm curious where you get your evidence for this?

    Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over

    I'm a lifelong GOPer from a GOP family that has been party of the party since the 1856 election and I (we) support Trump.

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.

    Trump has over 50% of the delegates awarded to date. You need to find a new talking point memo.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he’ll do it with a minority popular vote.

    The word you are looking for is a plurality, not a minority. Trump will also have a record for the highest total number of GOP votes in the primaries ever. Plurality winnners in the primary popular vote have been coronated before. See McCain, Nixon (68), Goldwater, Eisenhower,

    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans.

    Can you please name some small towns or rural counties outside Texas that Cruz won with over 50% of the vote? I think there may be perhaps 25 such counties out of the thousand or so that have voted. 8 in Missouri, 7 in Wisconsin, 6 in Idaho, 3 in Kentucky, 1 in North Carolina, and 1 in Oklahoma. So in your mind, this 2.5% showing by Cruz in dominating rural counties makes him the representative of such areas across the country? You do realize Trump won more rural counties by a majority in a single state - Alabama, where he won 27 by a majority - than Cruz did in the entire country outside Texas and Utah?

    He wins in the heartland states of the great plans

    No Great Plains states have had a primary election yet, so which states are you thinking of there that Cruz has "won"? Wyoming, Colorado, and North Dakota which didn't actually bother to hold elections for a candidate for president?

    the rocky mountains

    4 Rocky Mountains states have voted - Trump won Nevada and Arizona and Cruz won Utah and Idaho.

    intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci).

    This condescending tone towards everywhere that has not supported Cruz is why he is losing. There is nothing non-intact about most of the areas that voted for Trump. They certainly aren't all on opiods.

    His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean.

    Gosh, I never knew that as a Trump voter I failed to go to Church every Sunday, I failed at my wedding vows and got divorced and remarried like Cruz's own parents, and I failed to stay clean and fell into a life of casual sex (like Ted Cruz with his mistresses and whores) and drug use (like Ted Cruz, who used to use cocaine in college).

    Isn't this fun?

    Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party,

    Can you define the word "many"? Like how many percent of Trump's support do you think is outsiders?
    , @Concerned Scientist
    >>Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans
    ...Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans

    This is partly true, but mostly false. Partly true in that Cruz does better with evangelicals than with other groups, and Kasich does better with college graduates than he does with other groups; BUT Trump does better with evangelicals than Cruz and Trump does better with college graduates than Kasich. So, your smear of Trump supporters as a Walking Dead legion of toothless opiate-addicted morons is MOSTLY BS.

    Also, remember how a major plot point in LA Confidential was whores cut to look like movie stars? I think it's more accurate to say Cruz is a whore cut to look like an evangelical, and Kasich is a whore cut to look like a country club Republican. Both have extremely close connections to the globalist financial industry.
  110. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    When contemplating the mess the US is in, I simply listen to Pavarotti and I feel better:

  111. AP says:
    @The most deplorable one
    It is curious that you elided certain information:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents, and now that Trump has only two opponents he is getting Reagan-like percentages.

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents,

    Scroll down. Reagan had seven opponents in the primaries – Bush, Anderson, Howard Baker (senate minority leader), Bob Dole, Connolly (former TX governor), Crane and Stassen (former Minnesota governor). And yet most of them were forced out early and Reagan managed to get about 60%.

    Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf."

    So, in tallying Reagan's 60% you didn't include his home turf?
  112. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    And yet most of them were forced out early and Reagan managed to get about 60%.

    I yield to your superior knowledge.

  113. @27 year old
    Oy vey, won't someone think of the 401k-Americans???

    Per one of his posts from April 6th, 2015, Merema is an African Muslim immigrant, not Jewish.

  114. AP says:
    @BB753
    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters, the same way Reagan brought Reagan Democrats to the GOP. This time, these voters are probably more working class and poorer than those Reagan Democrats of old. (My theory is that Steve Sailer himself is a former Reagan Democrat).

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,

    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a master politician at the top of his game in his third run for the GOP nomination.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    See, once again, you don't finish the sentence and leave out crucial details. Ronald Reagan did not have 16 other candidates through several months of campaigning and then having to face off vs. at least seven to eight of them for the first month and a half of the primary season. That make a major difference. John Anderson ran in the GE and what appears to have been forgotten, had about 7% of the popular vote. Most "experts" tend to agree that Anderson took votes away from both major candidates but certainly from Reagan. John Anderson was not a conservative, therefore, this idea that the mainstream GOP was solidly united behind Reagan in the GE isn't entirely accurate. Reagan in 1980 faced nowhere near 16 different candidates in his primaries. Also, Trump's home turf, NY; PA; MI; FL; contain sizable electoral votes in the GE. And, Trump is cleaning up in the South, which contains roughly 150-180 electoral votes. Add in the Northeast in November and Trump's candidacy is very competitive for the White House. He is the only candidate who is winning consistently in all regions of the US.

    Keep telling yourself that Trump will only receive ca45% of GOP vote. Tell yourself whatever you have to to avoid dealing with the reality that Cruz; Kasich; and the other numerous candidates that represented the many wings of the GOP couldn't focus on a single candidate to support over Trump.

    Maybe, just maybe, the GOP as a whole will support Trump's candidacy. The leaders are another matter entirely (they generally aren't conservative but also support globalist donor policies anyway so its understandable why someone like Trump rubs them the wrong way) but the ordinary voters will back Trump, just as they were able to support Romney, McCain, and Dole before him.

    , @anon
    Ronald Reagan didn't oppose the cheap labor lobby and their media.
    , @Andrew
    "The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes."

    Reagan ended up with 60% of the primary votes because his opponents dropped out before the end of the primaries. Romney had the same experience in 2012. He only reached a majority long after everyone else dropped out and he started winning essentially uncontested primaries with 60-80% of the vote.

    "Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over,"

    Again, most of Trump's lead and victories comes from winning in closed primaries with only Republican voters.

    Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky, Hawaii, Florida, Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware were all closed and New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Georiga, North Carolina, Rhode Island were semi-closed and included Independents.

    The only closed elections Trump lost were Iowa, Alaska, Oklahoma, Maine, and Idaho.

    "and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end."

    He already has 50% of the delegates to date. In my estimate, with around 25 million votes in, the remaining states are going to provide another 7-8 million votes and Trump is going to get over half of them which will put him at 14+ million votes out of 32 million or 44%. Cruz is going to have around 8-9 million and Kasich is going to have 5 million.
  115. @AP

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,
     
    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.

    Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a master politician at the top of his game in his third run for the GOP nomination.

    • Replies: @AP
    Yes. Reagan added to the party's voters - Trump is to a certain extent replacing or overcoming the party's voters.
    , @LondonBob
    Reagan has certainly airbrushed his first run out of the history books. Only realised that when I listened to this fantastic interview with Roger Stone.

    https://soundcloud.com/off-message/roger-stone-on-trump-campaign-you-dont-manage-donald

    Reagan really needed to win in 76, firmly in decline by the start of his second term.
  116. It’s going to be Trump in a landslide when Hillary disintegrates after Trump points out she’s a crook who has received special treatment, and a Bill enabler….

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Piece of cake. All Trump needs to do is point this out and boom, all the nice black lady voters, college leftists, etc., will switch parties immediately. No problem.
  117. @AP

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).
     
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP
     
    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.
     
    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?
     
    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party's leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.
     
    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.
     
    The "winner" has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won't be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he'll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.
     
    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven't succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, "country club" Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.

    “Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean.”

    With regards to staying clean, its a shame we can’t expect the same from their beloved candidate [Per the Enquirer Story on Cruz. And after all, if it was accurate on BIll Clinton and John Edwards, then we have to allow that it could be accurate material on Cruz as well).

    But the rest is a demonstrable lie. Because IF it were the case, we would tend to see these Evangelical voters voting massively and overwhelmingly for the one clear cut candidate who professes to support their interests and is supposedly uh, “one of them”. Let’s take a closer look at the record.

    FACT: Most American Evangelicals reside in the South. It is known as the “Bible Belt” for a clear reason.

    FACT: Most white US Evangelical adults, particularly those that vote, tend to vote overwhelmingly for the GOP.

    FACT: Therefore, in these states known as the Southern region of the US, we can take a closer look to see how the majority of Evangelicals have voted, especially since all the Southern states have voted with the exception of WVA.

    And what do the facts show? WHICH candidate have the Evangelicals clearly and fairly decisively cast their votes for? Not Kasich. Not Jeb! Not even Rubio. Which candidate? Which one have the majority of these Evangelical voters voted for by a majority.

    HINT: It hasn’t been Cruz. If it were, he’d have won more Southern states. People can argue and nit pick about irrelevant trivialities as in “It hasn’t been 50%, blah yada blah blah” the fact remains, that they have clearly and decisively cast their vote for TRUMP. Its not even arguable, that the majority of Evangelicals now back Trump. Should he receive the GOP nomination, its clear that they’d support him.

    Mitt Romney was not an Evangelical. He wasn’t even considered to be part of a mainstream Christian denomination. He also had a checkered past of not always supporting GOP conservative candidates. Yet he managed to carry the vast majority of these voters. If Evangelicals can vote (more or less) in massive numbers for a moderate globalist, there’s no reason why they also can’t turn out to vote for Donald Trump.

    Its clear that you don’t appear to like his candidacy. That’s fine. But at least in terms of consistency don’t hide behind trivialities as in “Trump isn’t really winning with ‘real’ conservatives (whatever that means). Or “Trump’s not really winning; he’s only winning because of newcomers into the primaries.” So what? If all these conservative Evangelicals were so heart set on seeing beloved Cruz win the nomination, then its up to them to turn out and vote for him, to give the majority of their votes to Cruz.

    And guess what? They haven’t done so. On paper, perhaps Cruz “represents” them; a more accurate word perhaps would be “symbolizes”. But guess what? The bulk of Evangelicals, the majority of them reside in the South, have not voted for him. In reality, Cruz does not symbolize or represents the Evangelicals any more than Mitt Romney did.

    And, look at Cruz’s choice of a “running mate” which makes no sense coming from a candidate who has just been mathematically eliminated from receiving the nomination. A “true” or “authentic” Evangelical would never ever choose a pro-choice, outsourcing, supportive of increasing illegal aliens, etc such as Carly Fiorina. At least Sarah Palin for all her faults was clearly understood to be a reliably conservative Evangelical. If Cruz simply couldn’t find a conservative Evangelical GOP to be his….pseudo/quasi-VP (has’t won the nomination and has been mathematically eliminated from it), wouldn’t that suggest that for all his talk of being an Evangelical, its really just a campaigning crock. Answer: Yes. We’re expected to believe that he couldn’t find one single conservative Evangelical out there to run with him? Not one? Come come now.

    My question which you appear to want to avoid: Do Evangelicals ever vote for other things besides their bible? Do they ever, oh,….vote on the issues of trade, immigration, jobs? Never? Not ever? So, according to your template, they only vote for God, gays, abortion, social issues, etc but nary a peep from them on other things? Really?

    Evangelical. With regards to the ’16 campaign season, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” As they continue to confound the “experts” and are voting (at least the majority of them) for Trump, and will continue to do so in the GE.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @AP
    Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don't go to church. I don't have such data for the entire South, but there is a map of deaths from prescription drug overdose by county in Kentucky. Trump won, often in landslides, those counties in Kentucky with the highest rates of such deaths (65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example). Of the 10 counties with no such deaths, Cruz won half and the ones he lost were very close, like 2%. Overall, Cruz won in the places in KY where folks were clean-living, though he lost the state (which like much of the modern South is having a drug epidemic).

    So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. The ones who still go the church, who work, who stay married, and who don't get addicted to opioids. Places populated with such people such as Utah, or western Michigan, or Iowa, or those outnumbered clean counties in Kentucky, vote for Cruz.

    As for Cruz's alleged personal issues - who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz. But even if true - traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types (Jimmy Swaggart?).

    Fiorina is not pro-choice:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/pro-life-carly-fiorina-announces-gop-presidential-bid-its-democrats-who-are-extreme-on-abortion/

    But I agree, Cruz's choice of her was bizarre, especially right before the IN primary. Does anyone know if she was popular among California's Republicans? She was their candidate for governor.
  118. @AP

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,
     
    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.

    See, once again, you don’t finish the sentence and leave out crucial details. Ronald Reagan did not have 16 other candidates through several months of campaigning and then having to face off vs. at least seven to eight of them for the first month and a half of the primary season. That make a major difference. John Anderson ran in the GE and what appears to have been forgotten, had about 7% of the popular vote. Most “experts” tend to agree that Anderson took votes away from both major candidates but certainly from Reagan. John Anderson was not a conservative, therefore, this idea that the mainstream GOP was solidly united behind Reagan in the GE isn’t entirely accurate. Reagan in 1980 faced nowhere near 16 different candidates in his primaries. Also, Trump’s home turf, NY; PA; MI; FL; contain sizable electoral votes in the GE. And, Trump is cleaning up in the South, which contains roughly 150-180 electoral votes. Add in the Northeast in November and Trump’s candidacy is very competitive for the White House. He is the only candidate who is winning consistently in all regions of the US.

    Keep telling yourself that Trump will only receive ca45% of GOP vote. Tell yourself whatever you have to to avoid dealing with the reality that Cruz; Kasich; and the other numerous candidates that represented the many wings of the GOP couldn’t focus on a single candidate to support over Trump.

    Maybe, just maybe, the GOP as a whole will support Trump’s candidacy. The leaders are another matter entirely (they generally aren’t conservative but also support globalist donor policies anyway so its understandable why someone like Trump rubs them the wrong way) but the ordinary voters will back Trump, just as they were able to support Romney, McCain, and Dole before him.

  119. Trump’s ace in the hole against Clinton and the establishment’s race baiting is the record of the el qaeda types Clinton helped install in Libya. They liquidated 10s of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans the Khaddafi regime had enabled to settle in Libya according to Khaddafi’s views on African unity as “mercenaries.”
    Trump is the one candidate whose contempt for “political correctness” will enable him to bring this issue up. I think that, if this issue is brought up effectively, it has the potential of tanking the Clintons’ black “firewall.” I am sure the establishment will continue their coverup, but Trump is the most likely to bring up this issue. Since it is provable truth, it will be difficult for Hillary and the power structure to maintain the coverup. I suspect that this issue is one reason why the complete dual party establishment structure has gone after Trump so aggressively. They realize that he is the type of candidate who can and will bring up issues like this one.
    Hillary should be facing the big house for this one, not the white house.

    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Nico
    One needs to understand the Islamic world is polarized roughly speaking into two camps: Sunnis and everyone else. Once in a while you get Sunnis who cross over to the other side, like Hussein, Sissi, Qadqfi, Ataturk and the Moroccan royalty, and bizarrely the first fundamentalist reversal took place in Shia Iran, but this latter increasingly seems to have been a fluke of nature and in any case Iran is now standing with the Alawites and other "quirky" elements within the Islamic world. One should also mention Shia Iranians and Sufi Indonesians who come to the West are much quicker to respectively apostasize and act normal than are most Sunni groups. It is however the Sunnis who have produced the Wahabbists and Salafists as well as their historical predecessors in the fanatical iconoclasts.

    Israel is the gadfly in here but conducts secret cooperation with the basically Sunni camp. Israel and Saudi oil are this the only reasons the U.S. takes sides with the Sunni camp but since Iran has oil it is becoming clear that we have no compelling reason to stay in this co except... Israel.

    I suspect there is considerable fear in establishment foreign policy quarters that Trump is on to this inconvenient factoid. They will not think of allowing the U.S. to switch camps on their watch. I don't want to be a conspiracy monger but if the idea that this sentiment led to the covert persuading of NR to come out uniformly "Against Trump" is too good to be true it's also too good to be ignored.
  120. @AP

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,
     
    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.

    Ronald Reagan didn’t oppose the cheap labor lobby and their media.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    In fact, Reagan turned out to be a cheap labor advocate with his amnesty and he never intended to rock the boat like Trump does.
    While Trump isn't a professional politician like Reagan, he's smart enough to outmanoeuvre the useless old party guard. In fact my theory is that Trump decided to run when he took a good look at the morons and cronies who've been running the GOP for the last 30 years. No doubt he's eager to fire them all. The real problem he faces are the entrenched Neocons who are far more intelligent and devious than your standard country club Republican. "Invade the world" has become the law of the land. How do you keep the military industrial complex and the military happy at the same time?
    And more importly, how do you keep the Israel Firster's happy? And the Saudi lobby? Since he's had to choose between those two to have a chance to wind down the war drive, it seems he's ready to put the Saudis in their place which isn't a bad start.
    For country-club Republicans, cheap labor and imperialistic foreign policies are as American as apple-pie.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Rhetoric aside, in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA and supported Amnesty for millions of illegals in '86, as well as free trade policies and helped create the concept of NAFTA, was no conservative GOP. But at least he was an Evangelical.
  121. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    Actually you may be on to something but I do think your position needs a number of nuances, which I don’t have time to go into here. But if you are correct and if this election IS a referendum on amnesty, policing and prosecution, and if it does indeed pit the nonwhite electorate on the polar opposite side of Trump, then all that means is Thomas W. Chittum’s “Civil War II” thesis was inevitable.

  122. @exiled off mainstreet
    Trump's ace in the hole against Clinton and the establishment's race baiting is the record of the el qaeda types Clinton helped install in Libya. They liquidated 10s of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans the Khaddafi regime had enabled to settle in Libya according to Khaddafi's views on African unity as "mercenaries."
    Trump is the one candidate whose contempt for "political correctness" will enable him to bring this issue up. I think that, if this issue is brought up effectively, it has the potential of tanking the Clintons' black "firewall." I am sure the establishment will continue their coverup, but Trump is the most likely to bring up this issue. Since it is provable truth, it will be difficult for Hillary and the power structure to maintain the coverup. I suspect that this issue is one reason why the complete dual party establishment structure has gone after Trump so aggressively. They realize that he is the type of candidate who can and will bring up issues like this one.
    Hillary should be facing the big house for this one, not the white house.

    One needs to understand the Islamic world is polarized roughly speaking into two camps: Sunnis and everyone else. Once in a while you get Sunnis who cross over to the other side, like Hussein, Sissi, Qadqfi, Ataturk and the Moroccan royalty, and bizarrely the first fundamentalist reversal took place in Shia Iran, but this latter increasingly seems to have been a fluke of nature and in any case Iran is now standing with the Alawites and other “quirky” elements within the Islamic world. One should also mention Shia Iranians and Sufi Indonesians who come to the West are much quicker to respectively apostasize and act normal than are most Sunni groups. It is however the Sunnis who have produced the Wahabbists and Salafists as well as their historical predecessors in the fanatical iconoclasts.

    Israel is the gadfly in here but conducts secret cooperation with the basically Sunni camp. Israel and Saudi oil are this the only reasons the U.S. takes sides with the Sunni camp but since Iran has oil it is becoming clear that we have no compelling reason to stay in this co except… Israel.

    I suspect there is considerable fear in establishment foreign policy quarters that Trump is on to this inconvenient factoid. They will not think of allowing the U.S. to switch camps on their watch. I don’t want to be a conspiracy monger but if the idea that this sentiment led to the covert persuading of NR to come out uniformly “Against Trump” is too good to be true it’s also too good to be ignored.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Historically (under the Shah), Israel had a great relationship with Iran and its enemies were Sunni. In the Middle East, people switch sides all the time. Your former enemy becomes your ally and vice versa.
  123. @kaganovitch
    Is a Trump/Webb ticket out of the question?

    This is my guess. I’ve seen some farcical names put out there (Susana Martinez, Mia Love?!) which is basically identity cucking so hard it registers on a seismograph.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Actually think it would be a disaster if Trump picks anyone but a white male, pandering now would be a sign of weakness.

    Lets keep the Kris Kobach for VP meme alive too, Trump will need someone who can carry on the good work.
  124. @anon
    Ronald Reagan didn't oppose the cheap labor lobby and their media.

    In fact, Reagan turned out to be a cheap labor advocate with his amnesty and he never intended to rock the boat like Trump does.
    While Trump isn’t a professional politician like Reagan, he’s smart enough to outmanoeuvre the useless old party guard. In fact my theory is that Trump decided to run when he took a good look at the morons and cronies who’ve been running the GOP for the last 30 years. No doubt he’s eager to fire them all. The real problem he faces are the entrenched Neocons who are far more intelligent and devious than your standard country club Republican. “Invade the world” has become the law of the land. How do you keep the military industrial complex and the military happy at the same time?
    And more importly, how do you keep the Israel Firster’s happy? And the Saudi lobby? Since he’s had to choose between those two to have a chance to wind down the war drive, it seems he’s ready to put the Saudis in their place which isn’t a bad start.
    For country-club Republicans, cheap labor and imperialistic foreign policies are as American as apple-pie.

  125. @pyrrhus
    It's going to be Trump in a landslide when Hillary disintegrates after Trump points out she's a crook who has received special treatment, and a Bill enabler....

    Piece of cake. All Trump needs to do is point this out and boom, all the nice black lady voters, college leftists, etc., will switch parties immediately. No problem.

  126. @Nico
    One needs to understand the Islamic world is polarized roughly speaking into two camps: Sunnis and everyone else. Once in a while you get Sunnis who cross over to the other side, like Hussein, Sissi, Qadqfi, Ataturk and the Moroccan royalty, and bizarrely the first fundamentalist reversal took place in Shia Iran, but this latter increasingly seems to have been a fluke of nature and in any case Iran is now standing with the Alawites and other "quirky" elements within the Islamic world. One should also mention Shia Iranians and Sufi Indonesians who come to the West are much quicker to respectively apostasize and act normal than are most Sunni groups. It is however the Sunnis who have produced the Wahabbists and Salafists as well as their historical predecessors in the fanatical iconoclasts.

    Israel is the gadfly in here but conducts secret cooperation with the basically Sunni camp. Israel and Saudi oil are this the only reasons the U.S. takes sides with the Sunni camp but since Iran has oil it is becoming clear that we have no compelling reason to stay in this co except... Israel.

    I suspect there is considerable fear in establishment foreign policy quarters that Trump is on to this inconvenient factoid. They will not think of allowing the U.S. to switch camps on their watch. I don't want to be a conspiracy monger but if the idea that this sentiment led to the covert persuading of NR to come out uniformly "Against Trump" is too good to be true it's also too good to be ignored.

    Historically (under the Shah), Israel had a great relationship with Iran and its enemies were Sunni. In the Middle East, people switch sides all the time. Your former enemy becomes your ally and vice versa.

    • Replies: @Nico
    Yes, yes, 1000 times yes! But that just goes to show that our alliance with Israel is not unbreakable, either.
  127. @AP

    It seems that Reagan had only two opponents,
     
    Scroll down. Reagan had seven opponents in the primaries - Bush, Anderson, Howard Baker (senate minority leader), Bob Dole, Connolly (former TX governor), Crane and Stassen (former Minnesota governor). And yet most of them were forced out early and Reagan managed to get about 60%.

    Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf.

    “Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf.”

    So, in tallying Reagan’s 60% you didn’t include his home turf?

    • Replies: @AP
    Reagan got 80% in California, much better than Trump got in New York, but by then Reagan was the sure winner so the comparison isn't so parallel.
  128. @AP

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).
     
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP
     
    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.
     
    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?
     
    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party's leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.
     
    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.
     
    The "winner" has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won't be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he'll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.
     
    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven't succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, "country club" Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.

    You are going to have to update your talking points. Cruz kept hammering on this because he thought that there was some chance that Trump wouldn’t get to 50%. Now it looks as if he will, so time to change the subject. Hey, look over there, a female VP!

    But assume for the moment that Trump is one vote short of 50% on the first ballot. On the second ballot, the convention chooses say Jeb! Is this a good recipe for getting Trump voters to turn out in the fall and win the election?

    • Replies: @BB753
    That's assuming the GOP wants to win the presidential elections and not throw them as they've been doing for the last two elections. McCain and Mittens? Give me a break!
    , @The most deplorable one
    Maybe the Cruz Catastrophe can come out with a new slogan:

    We have a VP with a VJ

    OK, maybe not.
  129. @AP

    How did Trump “hijack” the Republican Party?
     
    Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.

    “Trump, an outsider and former Democrat, has seemingly taken over the party from its traditional electorate and leaders despite being outnumbered and outvoted by them*, by in part bringing in other outsiders.”

    Trump is a Republican and the vast majority of his voters are traditional registered Republican voters. All of his biggest victories (northeast, Florida, Arizona) have been in closed primaries where only Republicans can vote. To the extent Independents or Democrats are coming into the party, which is a good thing since it is not a closed club, it is because someone like Trump is running.

    “As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump. They roughly represent the traditional Evangelical/small town, and big business wings of the Republican Party.”

    Cruz represents the Religious Right wing of the party, not small towns or Evangelicals. He is doing terribly in rural and small town areas across the country which are being won by Trump. Even in Wisconsin, Trump won most of the towns and rural areas. To date, Cruz’s entire support could be summed up as Texas, Mormon’s, and SE Wisconsin GOP Establishment.

    Kasich is the representative of business and usual/country club/green eyeshades Republicanism in the tradition of Eisenhower and Rockefeller.

    Post March 15 in a 3 man race, Trump has 2.555M votes and Cruz/Kasich/Others have 2.540 million votes.

  130. @TheJester
    iSteve,

    I do read from a number of sources that Romney may/would have been a viable choice for president. However, although I'm republican to the core, I and apparently many others could not stomach the idea of a Wall Street M&A millionaire becoming president. What were the Republican Party leadership thinking? Wanting radical change, I voted for Obama (truly the biggest political mistake of my long life).

    I still want radical change in this country ... although certainly not in the direction that Obama took us: cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-Western Civilization, pro-abortion, pro-Black, pro-immigration, pro-FGLBTQ etc., Islamic-friendly ... and owned by Wall Street.

    The choices this round are very similar with Trump advocating radical change in the direction of protecting our national interests, our nation's economy, and traditional morality and cultural values. The difference is that he definitely is NOT owned by Wall Street, which will remove that dreadful taint for me and hopefully other voters.

    The Hildebeast will carry forth Obama's legacy, including having sold out to Wall Street. In the war for selling her version of radical change, it will be interesting to see if one of Hillary's major themes to unite the fringe will be "bathroom choice" for trannies (not even decimal dust as a percent of the population) who have not yet bothered to get their "gender confirmation" operations.

    OT: University of Missouri fundraising has apparently taken a big hit since the "Black protests" in November 2015. The Missouri legislature is also holding back funds and freshman applications are down, which will further reduce state funding. All of this was predictable and predicted.

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-fundraising-takes-million-hit-in-december-as/article_ed7cfd5b-3b3e-5b18-95d9-f2945ac51172.html

    I still want radical change in this country … although certainly not in the direction that Obama took us: cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-Western Civilization, pro-abortion, pro-Black, pro-immigration, pro-FGLBTQ etc., Islamic-friendly … and owned by Wall Street.

    It’s very important to keep in mind that the “changes” in the sociopolitical landscape were preceded by many decades by an intelligentsia that was already there. The only way to reverse anything is to replace that intelligentsia.

  131. @AP

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters,
     
    Correct. The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes. Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over, and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.

    “The difference was that Reagan also got the support of most traditional Republicans and ended up with almost 60% of the primary votes.”

    Reagan ended up with 60% of the primary votes because his opponents dropped out before the end of the primaries. Romney had the same experience in 2012. He only reached a majority long after everyone else dropped out and he started winning essentially uncontested primaries with 60-80% of the vote.

    “Trump seems to be using his Trump Democrats to take the party away for the divided traditional Republicans without winning over most of them over,”

    Again, most of Trump’s lead and victories comes from winning in closed primaries with only Republican voters.

    Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky, Hawaii, Florida, Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware were all closed and New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Georiga, North Carolina, Rhode Island were semi-closed and included Independents.

    The only closed elections Trump lost were Iowa, Alaska, Oklahoma, Maine, and Idaho.

    “and if he gets 50% of the delegates will probably become the nominee with 40%-45% support in the end.”

    He already has 50% of the delegates to date. In my estimate, with around 25 million votes in, the remaining states are going to provide another 7-8 million votes and Trump is going to get over half of them which will put him at 14+ million votes out of 32 million or 44%. Cruz is going to have around 8-9 million and Kasich is going to have 5 million.

  132. @Chrisnonymous
    Trump sounds better and better!!

    Trump sounds better and better!!

    That’s what I was going to say!!

  133. @Merema
    Trump's father was a landlord from Queens, and NYC landlord have a deep contempt for black people-who are notorious for not paying their rent. Trump has had contempt for black people for decades. I remember him back in the 80s going out his way to place an ad in the NY Times calling for the death penalty for the Central Park teens accused of rape. Just last year he tweeted that 81% of white homicide victims were victims of black murderers. Trump's racism is that unique outer borough New Yorky type-the Archie Bunker type-with no KKK or confederate flag or jim crow.

    In fact, I would say that Trump really does not like anyone who is not white-which is why he can't stand China, India, Vietnam or Mexico, but is okay with Russia. In Trump's world view, America and Europe should be rich, and the rest of the world should be poor-like in the 50s and 60s before the economic rise of Asia. Also, he believes in stealing from of non white countries and people. Hence, he always talks about "making Mexico pay", or garnishing the pay of mexican immigrants. He is upset that Iran's assets in the US were returned as part of lifting the sanctions and believes that the US should have taken over Iraq oil assets after the war.

    A president Trump will shock the world with his economic bigotry and will probably even destabilize the global economy (there goes our 401k).

    I think that Trump was stunned when a Black man became president-probably drove him crazy. That's why he went beyond even the birthers and offered 5 million dollars if Obama could release his COLLEGE transcripts. To Trump, no black is qualified for the Ivy leagues even though he himself got in Wharton due to his family wealth and connections.

    Trump has always talked about running for President but probably lacked confidence until Obama. It was Obama's victory that finally convinced him to run, because he figured that if a Black man could become president of the US so can he.

    It really is too bad that the one person who could have addresses the immigration mess of America turned out to be such a mental case.

    You pretty much laid out Hillary’s talking points for the fall. Well done. You should probably apply for a job at her campaign

    • Replies: @res

    You pretty much laid out Hillary’s talking points for the fall. Well done. You should probably apply for a job at her campaign
     
    Or apply for a raise.
  134. @countenance
    Trump won every county and every Congressional district that voted yesterday.

    RI and CT break it down by towns, and Kasich's only wins were:

    Barrington, Rhode Island
    West Hartford, Conn.
    Westport, Conn.
    New Canaan, Conn.

    Not all of CT is in yet, so he may take a few more.

    I presume these are all very well to do places. Which makes Kasich not winning Greenwich, Conn., strange.

    “RI and CT break it down by towns, and Kasich’s only wins were”

    I’ve been looking at town wins in Pennsylvania by Kasich. So far its:

    Philadelphia City:
    Ward 9 (Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy)
    Wards 5, 8, 15, 24, 27, 30 (Center City/Fairmount/University City)

    Montgomery County
    Lower Merion Township
    Narberth Borough
    Bryn Athyn Borough

    Delaware County:
    Radnor Township
    Swarthmore Borough
    Rose Valley Borough

    Chester County:
    Easttown Township
    Tredyffrin Township

    Allegheny County:
    Mt. Lebanon Borough
    Sewickley Borough
    Fox Chapel Borough

    Kasich didn’t win a single town in Bucks County. In fact, he only won a single precinct in the entire county, one section of Doylestown Borough (the wealthy county seat). He couldn’t even win his home town of McKees Rocks

    Bryn Athyn (a strange, wealthy town run by the Swedenborgian Church) is the only reliably Republican voting district on this list. Radnor/Easttown/Tredffrin is mixed or perhaps leans Republicans in a good year.

    Lower Merion-Narberth-Radnor-Easttown-Tredyffrin is the famous and very wealthy Main Line

    Swarthmore is a wealthy liberal college town.

    Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy and Center City are the wealthiest areas in the city by a wide margin. Chestnut Hill/West Mt. Airy are two neighborhoods in the city with huge mansions and large estates nestled into a city park. Center City is like a mini-Manhattan of apartments and brownstones. Chestnut Hill last leaned Republican around 1980.

    The boroughs in Allegheny that he won are the rich elitist towns in the county.

    I haven’t tried checking the whole state, but my gut tells me that those are probably the only ten communities he could carry out of 2,561 townships, boroughs, and cities in Pennsylvania. Pretty pathetic.

  135. Reality Check: Primary performance has no relationship to general election performance. In every poll of PA, Trump does worse against Hillary! than Cruz, just as he does worse against her in every national poll. And after Trump loses to Hillary! in a landslide, we will likely get an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of 8, because his loss will wrongly be blamed on his immigration stance, rather than his repellent personal traits.

    My question to Trump supporters: Given that Trump polls 7 points worse vs. Hillary! than Cruz, what exactly is the Big Payoff you expect to get from Trump, that you won’t get from Cruz, which is so fantastic it justifies spotting Hillary! 7 points?

    Bear in mind that on immigration, Trump’s signature issue, there really isn’t much substantive difference between them, in fact Cruz has a slightly better NumbersUSA score than Trump does.

    • Replies: @Ed
    It's early. Trump's weakness in general election polls during these past few weeks is due mostly to Republicans not supporting him. You have to figure that changes once he's the nominee and the battle against Hillary starts in earnest.

    Another thing the polls don't project out turnout much. That's a big wildcard in all of this, who will show up on Election Day?
    , @Concerned Scientist
    The difference between Trump and Cruz on immigration is that Cruz is lying.

    Also, if Hillary's biggest weakness is all the post-hoc bribery she's received, how is Cruz, whose wife works for Goldman, going to use that? It would be like nominating the guy who inspired Obamacare to run against Obamacare, again.
  136. Regarding Trump and working class whites, his primary tallies in Delaware County, PA in working class communities along the Delaware River are pretty overwhelming.

    Marcus Hook – 71% of GOP voters, 52% of all primary voters
    Tinicum Township – 70% of GOP voters, 52% of all primary voters
    Lower Chichester Township – 68% of GOP voters, 48% of all primary voters
    Eddystone – 61% of GOP voters, 45% of all primary voters
    Trainer – 72% of GOP voters, 42% of all primary voters
    Aston Township – 61% of GOP voters, 42% of all primary voters
    Clifton Heights – 70% of GOP voters, 40% of all primary voters
    Upper Chichester Township – 62% of GOP voters, 40% of all primary voters
    Ridley Township – 59% of GOP voters, 40% of all primary voters

    Obama won all of these towns in 2012 except Aston, some of them decisively. And keep in mind the primary is closed so no independents or crossover voting.

    Marcus Hook – 63% Obama
    Tinicum Township – 52% Obama
    Lower Chichester Township – 58% Obama
    Eddystone – 65% Obama
    Trainer – 68% Obama
    Aston Township – 47% Obama
    Clifton Heights – 60% Obama
    Upper Chichester Township – 55% Obama
    Ridley Township – 53% Obama

  137. @AP

    You are being a bit dishonest here. Since this month, with the three candidate race, Trump’s total share of the GOP primary votes have increased substantially.
     
    Cherry-picking the time when the race shifted to Trump's home turf is not an accurate picture of the race.

    As of now, Trump has 10,123,595 votes, Cruz 6,921,404 votes and 3,677,666 votes. Trump leads the party despite his enemies collectively having more votes than he does. Throw in Rubio's 3+ million votes and you see that Trump's supporters are even further outnumbered by traditional Republican/Establishment supporters. Yet, despite his supporters being outnumbered, despite being opposed by the party's very leadership, former democrat Trump is on the verge of taking control of this party. Quite impressive.

    Oh, of course, it’s because Cruz didn’t have his new running mate VP, Carly Fiorina on the stump campaigning by his side to help him sew up the nomination. Of course.
     
    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn't among the general public)?

    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn’t among the general public)?

    Fiorina won the GOP Senate primary in CA with over 50% of the vote in a 3-person race. She never ran for governor of NY.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Was Carly suffering from cancer when she ran for Senate? She seemed to mostly disappear during the general election campaign, but I didn't hold that against her because I assumed she was in a life or death battle with cancer.
  138. @BB753
    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did. By the way Reagan was also a former Democrat. So basically Trump is creating Trump Democrats out of disenfranchised white voters, the same way Reagan brought Reagan Democrats to the GOP. This time, these voters are probably more working class and poorer than those Reagan Democrats of old. (My theory is that Steve Sailer himself is a former Reagan Democrat).

    Donald Trump is taking away white voters from the democrats, the way Reagan did.

    He might be taking away some white voters, but overall the polls show him doing worse with white voters vs. Hillary! than Romney did vs. Obama, because he’s driving away more college-educated whites than he is attracting new blue-collar whites.

  139. @AP

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).
     
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP
     
    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.
     
    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?
     
    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party's leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.
     
    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.
     
    The "winner" has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won't be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he'll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.
     
    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven't succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, "country club" Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.

    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987

    I’m curious where you get your evidence for this?

    Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over

    I’m a lifelong GOPer from a GOP family that has been party of the party since the 1856 election and I (we) support Trump.

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.

    Trump has over 50% of the delegates awarded to date. You need to find a new talking point memo.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he’ll do it with a minority popular vote.

    The word you are looking for is a plurality, not a minority. Trump will also have a record for the highest total number of GOP votes in the primaries ever. Plurality winnners in the primary popular vote have been coronated before. See McCain, Nixon (68), Goldwater, Eisenhower,

    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans.

    Can you please name some small towns or rural counties outside Texas that Cruz won with over 50% of the vote? I think there may be perhaps 25 such counties out of the thousand or so that have voted. 8 in Missouri, 7 in Wisconsin, 6 in Idaho, 3 in Kentucky, 1 in North Carolina, and 1 in Oklahoma. So in your mind, this 2.5% showing by Cruz in dominating rural counties makes him the representative of such areas across the country? You do realize Trump won more rural counties by a majority in a single state – Alabama, where he won 27 by a majority – than Cruz did in the entire country outside Texas and Utah?

    He wins in the heartland states of the great plans

    No Great Plains states have had a primary election yet, so which states are you thinking of there that Cruz has “won”? Wyoming, Colorado, and North Dakota which didn’t actually bother to hold elections for a candidate for president?

    the rocky mountains

    4 Rocky Mountains states have voted – Trump won Nevada and Arizona and Cruz won Utah and Idaho.

    intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci).

    This condescending tone towards everywhere that has not supported Cruz is why he is losing. There is nothing non-intact about most of the areas that voted for Trump. They certainly aren’t all on opiods.

    His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean.

    Gosh, I never knew that as a Trump voter I failed to go to Church every Sunday, I failed at my wedding vows and got divorced and remarried like Cruz’s own parents, and I failed to stay clean and fell into a life of casual sex (like Ted Cruz with his mistresses and whores) and drug use (like Ted Cruz, who used to use cocaine in college).

    Isn’t this fun?

    Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party,

    Can you define the word “many”? Like how many percent of Trump’s support do you think is outsiders?

  140. @Jack D

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.
     
    You are going to have to update your talking points. Cruz kept hammering on this because he thought that there was some chance that Trump wouldn't get to 50%. Now it looks as if he will, so time to change the subject. Hey, look over there, a female VP!

    But assume for the moment that Trump is one vote short of 50% on the first ballot. On the second ballot, the convention chooses say Jeb! Is this a good recipe for getting Trump voters to turn out in the fall and win the election?

    That’s assuming the GOP wants to win the presidential elections and not throw them as they’ve been doing for the last two elections. McCain and Mittens? Give me a break!

  141. Ed says:

    Skipping the weird 200+ comment pop culture thread further up, I skimmed through this and think AP has a point. Trump did execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It would have been unthinkable last year that the Republicans would nominate someone who has been critical of the invasion of Iraq and of NAFTA. Trump has criticized or gotten into very public arguments with the last three Republican presidential nominees.

    Many of the people voting for Trump in the primaries are non-Republicans taking advantage of “open primaries”, which I don’t quite understand. Cruz has been beating him where the nomination contests are both restricted to party activists and in places where the Republicans get the highest general election vote percentages. Its fair to say that if you were to construct an ideal politician for Republican activists, you would get something like Ted Cruz. Of course, such a creature would find it hard to get over 20% of the vote outside of places like Texas. To win elections, Republicans have usually nominated someone who is more like Kasich.

    Sort of the mirror process happened with the Democratic Party this year, since Sanders for most of his career has not been a Democratic, and polls and geography shows that his supporters generally are independents voting in the Democratic primary and he does best in localities that are not controlled by the Democrats. The Democratic establishment has tighter control over their party. Hilary Clinton is sort of like a Democratic version of Cruz, the ideal candidate for Democratic activists who is unappealing to everyone else, though in this case they are actually nominating here.

    The Wikipedia contributors have aggregated the vote totals of candidates in presidential primaries, which is both difficult to do and interesting. So far in 2016, they aggregate in the Republican nomination contests as follows:

    Trump 39.7%
    Cruz 27.1%
    Kasich 14.4%
    Rubio 13.7%

    Usually in the later nomination contests the leading candidate’s overall vote percentage increases.

    By the time everything was over, these were the aggregated percentages of the Republican vote past nominees wound up with, excluding years where in an incumbent Republican president ran for re-election:

    2012 Romney 52.1%
    2008 McCain 46.6%
    2000 GW Bush 62.0%
    1996 Dole 58.8%
    1988 GHW Bush 67.9%
    1980 Reagan 57.8%

    Trump’s aggregated percentage will be higher once this is all over, but he probably won’t wind up with over 50% as has been the case (except in 2008) with past nominees.

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn’t have Hilary Clinton’s vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Again, and this is important as to why a large part of this is irrelevant. In '16, Trump has had to face nearly 16 individual candidates. The vote totals don't exist in a vacuum. The previous GOP nominees you cite didn't face 16 different candidates. In most cases, they didn't even face 4 or 5 different candidates.

    Also, let's be honest about this. For the most part, all of the ones you cite were the expected nominee. They came up thru the ranks, sometimes they were given the nomination simply because it was "their time, their turn to run". Also, don't miss the bigger picture here. In the open primaries (of which the majority of US states now adhere to in the primary season) if the GOP rank and files were oh so enamored by say, Rubio, or Jeb!, or Kasich, or Cruz, etc. then they would've united solidly behind him and Trump really wouldn't have had a chance. The reason being is that the GOP's own rank and file would have turned out in massive numbers in the primaries to guarantee that their preferred candidate would win the nomination.This just shows that when alls said and done, the GOP's officially sanctioned candidates are NOT what the vast majority of voters, and that includes the GOP as a whole, really prefer to represent them in the GE. I mean, you can't get more established GOP mode than Jeb! He is in the same vein as Romney, McCain, etc. It was well known he was going to run a few yrs ago, he had name recognition, he had more money in his warchest than anyone else. What does it tell you that he simply didn't poll very well among GOP voters at large? If Mr Establishment candidate Jeb! couldn't poll above 5% among GOP voters, then perhaps more of them have been voting for Trump's candidacy then hardcore established GOP rank and filers would care to concede.

    Trump however, is more akin to someone like Ross Perot. No one took his candidacy seriously at first either. Perot appeared came out of nowhere, so to speak. But that's where the similarities in both candidates ends. Trump has been well known for several decades across demographics. Unlike Perot, Trump is a far better and more effective communicator. Trump is also running on issues where, though Perot may have popularized them, no one under age 35 recalls that (or much about his candidacy). After all, Trump spent a brief period with the Reform Party so the idea that he suddenly decided to use immigration, trade, sovereignty as a wedge to bash Jeb! and the establishment since last year is ridiculous. The fact is, Trump and Trump alone, is setting the agenda on immigration, trade, etc. No other candidate was talking about these issues previously. Trump has brought the issues to the forefront which means he is setting the GOP agenda for the GE in November.

    If the GOP rank and file, ordinary voters truly wanted Cruz, Jeb!, Rubio, etc. all they had to do was turn out in massive numbers and vote for them. Its not as if they had no idea whatsoever that this was an election year. It's not as if they didn't understand that they have to get in full lockstep and support the candidate that their leaders were telling them to support. Also, some here may be forgetting that there have been about 12 televised debates, some of which set national ratings records for most watched. In a few cases, these GOP individual debates were more watched than popular culture shows, than sporting events, etc. Why would 25 million distinct viewers watch a GOP party debate in August when they have better things to do with their time? No one does that, unless there are some candidates who are offering something of value to listen to. Contrast the viewing numbers with prior GOP debates and it becomes clear that fewer people watched the debates in previous years.

    And, finally, lets also remember that the majority of GOP debate viewers are going to be….GOP rank and file voters. Those that will vote in the primaries. Maybe, just maybe, these rank and file GOP voters decided after watching several debates that the established candidates simply weren't all that. All hat and no cattle. Therefore, they have decided to give Trump a chance and the primary results are clear that that's what they've been doing. Even in the states that Trump hasn't won, most of the time he finished second, so clearly he has a strong base of support even in the Mt Region/Plains area. This idea that Trump isn't well supported outside ordinary independent voters is baloney. All the GOP rank and files had to do was support a preferred candidate such as Rubio or Jeb! or Cruz. They haven't done so.

    It's time to get over these ridiculous pearl clutching histrionics, do the right thing, and give support to Trump in the GE so that he can defeat Hillary and return the White House to the GOP. After all, isn't that what elections are supposed to be about, namely, winning?

    , @Jack D
    The significance is nothing. Sometimes a candidate gets a high % in the primary and loses the general anyway (Kerry), sometimes he gets less than a majority of the popular vote in the primary and wins the general (Obama). You win the nomination by getting a majority of the delegates at the convention, you will the general by getting a majority of the electoral votes. The popular vote means nothing in either election.
    , @Richard

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn’t have Hilary Clinton’s vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.
     
    Supposedly Sanders supporters have hijacked Wikipedia and are keeping the popular vote percentages off the site because it makes their candidate look bad. I did the calculations myself last night, and Clinton is beating Sanders in the total popular vote 56% to 42%. This may improve with all the black-heavy states (where Sanders got murdered) now in the can.
  142. @Jefferson
    "And Romney is not Donald Trump in that Trump has had across the board national name recognition for over 35yrs. How many people outside corporate America (man in the street as in Letterman/Kimmel/Leno’s old skits interviewing ‘have you ever heard of…”), how many ordinary folks had heard of Mitt Romney in 1990? Whereas most adults and practically everyone over the age of 18 had definitely heard of Donald Trump in 1990."

    Most Americans have never even heard of Mitt Romney in 2010, let alone 1990.

    "And that tends to be the main point: Since Romney was not well defined nationally before receiving the nomination, such gaffes as “47 percent, etc” as well as the auto bailout issue, did major damage to his candidacy over the long haul in the GE with independent voters, because it fit the image of him as an out of touch globalist plutocrat who didn’t care about the interests of anyone but the top one percent. Trump by contrast has made several times more gaffes during the campaign season, but they haven’t directly hurt his candidacy. Also, Trump hasn’t directly gaffed up on major policy issues that ordinary folks tend to care about. He’s not going to make a similar kind of “47%, etc” gaffe, or, say, an anti-auto bailout type of quote. Can anyone imagine Romney stating “Know what? We need to look after our infrastructure. Our roads are in poor condition, etc and we need to rebuild them”. Or on imminent domain? Or on building a wall? Can you see Mitt standing up and promising to build a wall on the southern border? Please."

    Mitt Romney comes off as a rich cuck snob. Donald Trump comes off as a wealthy man with an alpha male blue collar attitude, just like Kid Rock and The Duck Dynasty crew.

    Exactly, but according to AP and other Cruz supporters, such men as Romney, McCain, W, Dole, etc. are the ideal GOP conservative candidate. Cruz will fit this mold over time. He wont make waves, he’ll get along with the donors and globalists, and he really won’t push for US interests either in the domestic front or on the world stage. All you have to do is ask yourself: How come if he’s in the US Senate for nearly six yrs, Cruz never introduced legislation to build a wall on TX’s border? I mean, the state he represents shares its southern border with Mexico so you’d think that it would have occurred to him to sponsor such legislation by now, IF the issue of immigration was paramount as he would have us all to believe during this primary season. Senator Jeff Sessions, a true conservative on many issues, especially on immigration isn’t supporting Cruz, he has endorsed Trump instead. Wonder why? Doesn’t Sessions know that Cruz is so Evangelical and for the majority of the GOP voters that issue alone is the most important one in this primary season? Doesn’t Sessions understand that its far more important whether or not a religious Evangelical voter hears their candidate mouth the correct platitudes about the Lord? Doesn’t Sessions get it?

    Uh, yes, Sessions does get it and that’s why he’s supporting Trump.

    Before Trump entered the race, which candidate(s) had made immigration one of their key issues? Which ones made immigration, trade, etc part and parcel of the most important issues that they were running on? Answer: No one. You could make a case that Jeb! had intended to make immigration a key issue of his campaign, just that he wasn’t on the side of US interests and certainly wasn’t going to publicly announce his true intentions on the issue during the campaign (much as his older brother W didn’t directly campaign in ’00 on immigration at all).

    And Jeb! is an ideal candidate for Cruz supporters. He represents what Cruz over time will become: beholden to the donors, top one percenters. Maybe an occasional odd position here and there (e.g. pro life, etc) but overall nothing that rocks the boat or upsets their global apple cart.

    But for some, Cruz is the ideal candidate because of his Evangelicalism, whatever that means in 2016. Perhaps for some it means, “go along with what the donors say. Don’t challenge the Narrative, shut up, and be loyal GOP voters even if the candidates never give you what you think you’re voting for.” Much like how the Democrats view African-American voters, except unlike the GOP, they actually do give them something for their votes.

  143. @AP

    That’s not accurate. Trump, along with his father, were on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, (part of the treasury or helping with the fundraising).
     
    Although Trump supported Reagan early on, he was a Democrat until 1987, a Republican from 1987 to 1999, a member of the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001, a Democrat again from 2001 to 2009, and a Republican again from 2012.

    For the most part, Trump has supported the GOP
     
    Only in 2011 did his contributions to Republicans surpass those to Democrats.

    But Cruz-Kasich, isn’t one person.
     
    No one said they were.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Isn’t it about winning? Shouldn’t that count in the big picture?
     
    Trump is winning despite being an outsider with many outsider supporters, and despite being outnumbered and opposed by the party's leadership. A very impressive and well done hijacking of the Republican Party.

    I mean, I could say that With Trump and Carson, or Trump and Christie together if you added up their votes have received more than all the other candidates combined.
     
    You could say that, but then if you add Establishment Rubio to the mix Trump plus Carson plus Christie get blown away in terms of popular vote againt Cruz plus Kasich plus Rubio.

    This week, Ted Cruz was officially mathematically eliminated from receiving the GOP nomination. That’s not anyone’s idea of a surefire winner.
     
    The "winner" has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates. If Trump fails to get this he won't be a winner. Those are the rules. After that, becoming the winner depends on other processes.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he'll do it with a minority popular vote.

    Uh, Cruz represents the one percent, the donors.
     
    Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven't succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean. Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, "country club" Republicans (and most of his native Ohio). Those two groups have been the traditional bedrock of the Republican party. Trump has cleverly outmaneuvered them with his supporters, many of whom are outsiders and new to the party, because although Trump has fewer supporters than those two groups do collectively, he has more than either group has individually.

    >>Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans
    …Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans

    This is partly true, but mostly false. Partly true in that Cruz does better with evangelicals than with other groups, and Kasich does better with college graduates than he does with other groups; BUT Trump does better with evangelicals than Cruz and Trump does better with college graduates than Kasich. So, your smear of Trump supporters as a Walking Dead legion of toothless opiate-addicted morons is MOSTLY BS.

    Also, remember how a major plot point in LA Confidential was whores cut to look like movie stars? I think it’s more accurate to say Cruz is a whore cut to look like an evangelical, and Kasich is a whore cut to look like a country club Republican. Both have extremely close connections to the globalist financial industry.

    • Replies: @AP
    <blockquote "Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans
    …Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans"

    This is partly true, but mostly false. Partly true in that Cruz does better with evangelicals than with other groups, and Kasich does better with college graduates than he does with other groups; BUT Trump does better with evangelicals than Cruz and Trump does better with college graduates than Kasich
     As I pointed out elsewhere, Cruz does do slightly better with Evangelicals than does Trump (41% to 38%), and a lot better with people who go to church every Sunday than does Trump (44% to 29%):

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/pew-poll-ted-cruz-backed-by-white-evangelicals-weekly-church-goers-trump-by-white-mainline-protestants-160718/

    The article was written prior to Trump's romp in the Northeast; though there aren't many Evangelicals there than in other places his numbers probably improved.

    The issue with Kasich is trickier because the wealthy, professional-class Republicans had earlier largely flocked to Rubio in the earlier primaries. So for example in SC, Rubio beat Trump 27% to 25% among college graduates (Kasich got another 10%), but Trump got 41% among non college graduates (vs. 17% Rubio, 4% Kasich). In Virginia, Rubio got 37% among college graduates, Trump 27% with another 13% for Kasich; among non college graduates the % votes were 43%, 25% and 4% for Trump, Rubio, Kasich, respectively. In Michigan Kasich won among college graduates with 30%, vs. 27% Trump and 14% Rubio. Trump got 46% of the nongraduate vote, vs. 19% Kasich, 6% Rubio.

    Trump won among all groups in his home territory in the Northeast, of course.
  144. @Ed
    Skipping the weird 200+ comment pop culture thread further up, I skimmed through this and think AP has a point. Trump did execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It would have been unthinkable last year that the Republicans would nominate someone who has been critical of the invasion of Iraq and of NAFTA. Trump has criticized or gotten into very public arguments with the last three Republican presidential nominees.

    Many of the people voting for Trump in the primaries are non-Republicans taking advantage of "open primaries", which I don't quite understand. Cruz has been beating him where the nomination contests are both restricted to party activists and in places where the Republicans get the highest general election vote percentages. Its fair to say that if you were to construct an ideal politician for Republican activists, you would get something like Ted Cruz. Of course, such a creature would find it hard to get over 20% of the vote outside of places like Texas. To win elections, Republicans have usually nominated someone who is more like Kasich.

    Sort of the mirror process happened with the Democratic Party this year, since Sanders for most of his career has not been a Democratic, and polls and geography shows that his supporters generally are independents voting in the Democratic primary and he does best in localities that are not controlled by the Democrats. The Democratic establishment has tighter control over their party. Hilary Clinton is sort of like a Democratic version of Cruz, the ideal candidate for Democratic activists who is unappealing to everyone else, though in this case they are actually nominating here.

    The Wikipedia contributors have aggregated the vote totals of candidates in presidential primaries, which is both difficult to do and interesting. So far in 2016, they aggregate in the Republican nomination contests as follows:

    Trump 39.7%
    Cruz 27.1%
    Kasich 14.4%
    Rubio 13.7%

    Usually in the later nomination contests the leading candidate's overall vote percentage increases.

    By the time everything was over, these were the aggregated percentages of the Republican vote past nominees wound up with, excluding years where in an incumbent Republican president ran for re-election:

    2012 Romney 52.1%
    2008 McCain 46.6%
    2000 GW Bush 62.0%
    1996 Dole 58.8%
    1988 GHW Bush 67.9%
    1980 Reagan 57.8%

    Trump's aggregated percentage will be higher once this is all over, but he probably won't wind up with over 50% as has been the case (except in 2008) with past nominees.

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn't have Hilary Clinton's vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.

    Again, and this is important as to why a large part of this is irrelevant. In ’16, Trump has had to face nearly 16 individual candidates. The vote totals don’t exist in a vacuum. The previous GOP nominees you cite didn’t face 16 different candidates. In most cases, they didn’t even face 4 or 5 different candidates.

    Also, let’s be honest about this. For the most part, all of the ones you cite were the expected nominee. They came up thru the ranks, sometimes they were given the nomination simply because it was “their time, their turn to run”. Also, don’t miss the bigger picture here. In the open primaries (of which the majority of US states now adhere to in the primary season) if the GOP rank and files were oh so enamored by say, Rubio, or Jeb!, or Kasich, or Cruz, etc. then they would’ve united solidly behind him and Trump really wouldn’t have had a chance. The reason being is that the GOP’s own rank and file would have turned out in massive numbers in the primaries to guarantee that their preferred candidate would win the nomination.This just shows that when alls said and done, the GOP’s officially sanctioned candidates are NOT what the vast majority of voters, and that includes the GOP as a whole, really prefer to represent them in the GE. I mean, you can’t get more established GOP mode than Jeb! He is in the same vein as Romney, McCain, etc. It was well known he was going to run a few yrs ago, he had name recognition, he had more money in his warchest than anyone else. What does it tell you that he simply didn’t poll very well among GOP voters at large? If Mr Establishment candidate Jeb! couldn’t poll above 5% among GOP voters, then perhaps more of them have been voting for Trump’s candidacy then hardcore established GOP rank and filers would care to concede.

    Trump however, is more akin to someone like Ross Perot. No one took his candidacy seriously at first either. Perot appeared came out of nowhere, so to speak. But that’s where the similarities in both candidates ends. Trump has been well known for several decades across demographics. Unlike Perot, Trump is a far better and more effective communicator. Trump is also running on issues where, though Perot may have popularized them, no one under age 35 recalls that (or much about his candidacy). After all, Trump spent a brief period with the Reform Party so the idea that he suddenly decided to use immigration, trade, sovereignty as a wedge to bash Jeb! and the establishment since last year is ridiculous. The fact is, Trump and Trump alone, is setting the agenda on immigration, trade, etc. No other candidate was talking about these issues previously. Trump has brought the issues to the forefront which means he is setting the GOP agenda for the GE in November.

    If the GOP rank and file, ordinary voters truly wanted Cruz, Jeb!, Rubio, etc. all they had to do was turn out in massive numbers and vote for them. Its not as if they had no idea whatsoever that this was an election year. It’s not as if they didn’t understand that they have to get in full lockstep and support the candidate that their leaders were telling them to support. Also, some here may be forgetting that there have been about 12 televised debates, some of which set national ratings records for most watched. In a few cases, these GOP individual debates were more watched than popular culture shows, than sporting events, etc. Why would 25 million distinct viewers watch a GOP party debate in August when they have better things to do with their time? No one does that, unless there are some candidates who are offering something of value to listen to. Contrast the viewing numbers with prior GOP debates and it becomes clear that fewer people watched the debates in previous years.

    And, finally, lets also remember that the majority of GOP debate viewers are going to be….GOP rank and file voters. Those that will vote in the primaries. Maybe, just maybe, these rank and file GOP voters decided after watching several debates that the established candidates simply weren’t all that. All hat and no cattle. Therefore, they have decided to give Trump a chance and the primary results are clear that that’s what they’ve been doing. Even in the states that Trump hasn’t won, most of the time he finished second, so clearly he has a strong base of support even in the Mt Region/Plains area. This idea that Trump isn’t well supported outside ordinary independent voters is baloney. All the GOP rank and files had to do was support a preferred candidate such as Rubio or Jeb! or Cruz. They haven’t done so.

    It’s time to get over these ridiculous pearl clutching histrionics, do the right thing, and give support to Trump in the GE so that he can defeat Hillary and return the White House to the GOP. After all, isn’t that what elections are supposed to be about, namely, winning?

  145. @Ed
    Skipping the weird 200+ comment pop culture thread further up, I skimmed through this and think AP has a point. Trump did execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It would have been unthinkable last year that the Republicans would nominate someone who has been critical of the invasion of Iraq and of NAFTA. Trump has criticized or gotten into very public arguments with the last three Republican presidential nominees.

    Many of the people voting for Trump in the primaries are non-Republicans taking advantage of "open primaries", which I don't quite understand. Cruz has been beating him where the nomination contests are both restricted to party activists and in places where the Republicans get the highest general election vote percentages. Its fair to say that if you were to construct an ideal politician for Republican activists, you would get something like Ted Cruz. Of course, such a creature would find it hard to get over 20% of the vote outside of places like Texas. To win elections, Republicans have usually nominated someone who is more like Kasich.

    Sort of the mirror process happened with the Democratic Party this year, since Sanders for most of his career has not been a Democratic, and polls and geography shows that his supporters generally are independents voting in the Democratic primary and he does best in localities that are not controlled by the Democrats. The Democratic establishment has tighter control over their party. Hilary Clinton is sort of like a Democratic version of Cruz, the ideal candidate for Democratic activists who is unappealing to everyone else, though in this case they are actually nominating here.

    The Wikipedia contributors have aggregated the vote totals of candidates in presidential primaries, which is both difficult to do and interesting. So far in 2016, they aggregate in the Republican nomination contests as follows:

    Trump 39.7%
    Cruz 27.1%
    Kasich 14.4%
    Rubio 13.7%

    Usually in the later nomination contests the leading candidate's overall vote percentage increases.

    By the time everything was over, these were the aggregated percentages of the Republican vote past nominees wound up with, excluding years where in an incumbent Republican president ran for re-election:

    2012 Romney 52.1%
    2008 McCain 46.6%
    2000 GW Bush 62.0%
    1996 Dole 58.8%
    1988 GHW Bush 67.9%
    1980 Reagan 57.8%

    Trump's aggregated percentage will be higher once this is all over, but he probably won't wind up with over 50% as has been the case (except in 2008) with past nominees.

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn't have Hilary Clinton's vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.

    The significance is nothing. Sometimes a candidate gets a high % in the primary and loses the general anyway (Kerry), sometimes he gets less than a majority of the popular vote in the primary and wins the general (Obama). You win the nomination by getting a majority of the delegates at the convention, you will the general by getting a majority of the electoral votes. The popular vote means nothing in either election.

  146. @anon
    Ronald Reagan didn't oppose the cheap labor lobby and their media.

    Rhetoric aside, in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA and supported Amnesty for millions of illegals in ’86, as well as free trade policies and helped create the concept of NAFTA, was no conservative GOP. But at least he was an Evangelical.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA
     
    The things we "know" that aren't true!

    In the first place, in 1967 nobody was "pro-choice", nobody but a few radicals such as Pat Maginnis, Garrett Hardin, and Hugh Hefner. Reagan merely held the general Protestant attitude that the existing law was too strict, and needed a little easing up. Many Republicans agreed, and the opposite ends of the (then still narrow) issue, Jews and Catholics, were both solidly in the Democratic camp.

    The Therapeutic Abortion Act left the final decision where it had been all along, in the hospitals'
    abortion committees, not with the pregnant woman. A few more exceptions were granted, but there was some tightening as well. Reagan demanded that fetal deformity be dropped as a valid excuse, and that the upper age limit for statutory rape abortions be lowered to fourteen, to discourage fraud-- which was rampant. He actually proposed these measures to slow down or block the bill in committee, but the sponsor tricked him and granted them. Reagan was thus embarrassed into signing.

    Still, this is a long, long way from "pro-choice". If you don't think so, try proposing a new Therapeutic Abortion Act to your local NARAL or NOW chapter!

    Reagan was played by more experienced politicians. Much like in 1986.
  147. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Jack D

    The “winner” has always been defined as the one who gets 50% of the delegates.
     
    You are going to have to update your talking points. Cruz kept hammering on this because he thought that there was some chance that Trump wouldn't get to 50%. Now it looks as if he will, so time to change the subject. Hey, look over there, a female VP!

    But assume for the moment that Trump is one vote short of 50% on the first ballot. On the second ballot, the convention chooses say Jeb! Is this a good recipe for getting Trump voters to turn out in the fall and win the election?

    Maybe the Cruz Catastrophe can come out with a new slogan:

    We have a VP with a VJ

    OK, maybe not.

  148. @Steve Sailer
    Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a master politician at the top of his game in his third run for the GOP nomination.

    Yes. Reagan added to the party’s voters – Trump is to a certain extent replacing or overcoming the party’s voters.

  149. The problem is that Trump is such an unkind, uncharitable, petty and thin-skinned sort. For example, everyone who endorses him is wonderful and saintly, and everyone who endorses everyone else is terrible or inconsequential. He acts like a baby.

    Hmmm. Close the borders, stop the unnecessary wars, and make our trade policies fair.

    Versus

    He’s a meanie.

    Tough call.

    Yojimbo makes a great point: all of his “gaffes” are about shit nobody but the media-gov’t complex cares about.

    * As of now, Cruz and Kasich who are cooperating with each other combined have more votes than does Trump.

    Your Cruz-Kasich voters thing doesn’t survive the transfer from imagination to reality:

    Poll: Trump beats both foes head-to-head

    With Cruz supporters shifting to their second choices, Trump would have a large lead. Fifty-six percent said they would vote for Trump, with just 25 percent opting for Kasich and 13 percent undecided. More than seven-in-10 (71 percent) of tea party supporters said they would vote for Trump over the Ohio governor, along with strong majorities in every demographic and ideological group, including those describing themselves as moderate or liberal.

    Even if it did, it would just mean they’re jackasses for not deciding amongst themselves which would go on vs. Trump and which would drop out.

    Trump is on track to get more votes than any nominee in the history of the Republican party:

    Donald Trump could amass most primary votes in GOP history

    Donald Trump will likely wind up winning the most primary votes of any GOP presidential candidate in modern history, the author of the influential Smart Politics blog told The Post on Wednesday.

    After convincing victories in Tuesday’s primaries in five East Coast states, Trump has roughly 10.1 million votes, about 200,000 more than Mitt Romney got during the entire 2012 primary campaign.

    And with the primaries ahead — including in populous states such as California, New Jersey and Indiana — the former “Apprentice” ­reality TV star should easily break the modern record of 10.8 million held by George W. Bush in 2000, according to blogger Eric Ostermeier, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota.

    As I said Cruz and Kasich represent two parts of the traditional Republican party who collectively outnumber Trump and his supporters, any of whom are outsiders entering the party and taking it over.

    Good. The Republican party needs taking over.

    If Trump becomes the winner, he’ll do it with a minority popular vote.

    If anyone else does, he’ll do it with a much smaller minority of the popular vote.

    Trump did execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

    An observation made by pretty much everyone, ever.

  150. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. He wins in the heartland states of the great plans, the rocky mountains, Texas and intact parts of the other areas (such as western Michigan, or parts of Kentucky that haven’t succumbed to the opiate epidemci). His voters are the people who go to church every Sunday, stay married and stay clean."

    With regards to staying clean, its a shame we can't expect the same from their beloved candidate [Per the Enquirer Story on Cruz. And after all, if it was accurate on BIll Clinton and John Edwards, then we have to allow that it could be accurate material on Cruz as well).

    But the rest is a demonstrable lie. Because IF it were the case, we would tend to see these Evangelical voters voting massively and overwhelmingly for the one clear cut candidate who professes to support their interests and is supposedly uh, "one of them". Let's take a closer look at the record.

    FACT: Most American Evangelicals reside in the South. It is known as the "Bible Belt" for a clear reason.

    FACT: Most white US Evangelical adults, particularly those that vote, tend to vote overwhelmingly for the GOP.

    FACT: Therefore, in these states known as the Southern region of the US, we can take a closer look to see how the majority of Evangelicals have voted, especially since all the Southern states have voted with the exception of WVA.

    And what do the facts show? WHICH candidate have the Evangelicals clearly and fairly decisively cast their votes for? Not Kasich. Not Jeb! Not even Rubio. Which candidate? Which one have the majority of these Evangelical voters voted for by a majority.

    HINT: It hasn't been Cruz. If it were, he'd have won more Southern states. People can argue and nit pick about irrelevant trivialities as in "It hasn't been 50%, blah yada blah blah" the fact remains, that they have clearly and decisively cast their vote for TRUMP. Its not even arguable, that the majority of Evangelicals now back Trump. Should he receive the GOP nomination, its clear that they'd support him.

    Mitt Romney was not an Evangelical. He wasn't even considered to be part of a mainstream Christian denomination. He also had a checkered past of not always supporting GOP conservative candidates. Yet he managed to carry the vast majority of these voters. If Evangelicals can vote (more or less) in massive numbers for a moderate globalist, there's no reason why they also can't turn out to vote for Donald Trump.

    Its clear that you don't appear to like his candidacy. That's fine. But at least in terms of consistency don't hide behind trivialities as in "Trump isn't really winning with 'real' conservatives (whatever that means). Or "Trump's not really winning; he's only winning because of newcomers into the primaries." So what? If all these conservative Evangelicals were so heart set on seeing beloved Cruz win the nomination, then its up to them to turn out and vote for him, to give the majority of their votes to Cruz.

    And guess what? They haven't done so. On paper, perhaps Cruz "represents" them; a more accurate word perhaps would be "symbolizes". But guess what? The bulk of Evangelicals, the majority of them reside in the South, have not voted for him. In reality, Cruz does not symbolize or represents the Evangelicals any more than Mitt Romney did.

    And, look at Cruz's choice of a "running mate" which makes no sense coming from a candidate who has just been mathematically eliminated from receiving the nomination. A "true" or "authentic" Evangelical would never ever choose a pro-choice, outsourcing, supportive of increasing illegal aliens, etc such as Carly Fiorina. At least Sarah Palin for all her faults was clearly understood to be a reliably conservative Evangelical. If Cruz simply couldn't find a conservative Evangelical GOP to be his….pseudo/quasi-VP (has't won the nomination and has been mathematically eliminated from it), wouldn't that suggest that for all his talk of being an Evangelical, its really just a campaigning crock. Answer: Yes. We're expected to believe that he couldn't find one single conservative Evangelical out there to run with him? Not one? Come come now.

    My question which you appear to want to avoid: Do Evangelicals ever vote for other things besides their bible? Do they ever, oh,….vote on the issues of trade, immigration, jobs? Never? Not ever? So, according to your template, they only vote for God, gays, abortion, social issues, etc but nary a peep from them on other things? Really?

    Evangelical. With regards to the '16 campaign season, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." As they continue to confound the "experts" and are voting (at least the majority of them) for Trump, and will continue to do so in the GE.

    Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don’t go to church. I don’t have such data for the entire South, but there is a map of deaths from prescription drug overdose by county in Kentucky. Trump won, often in landslides, those counties in Kentucky with the highest rates of such deaths (65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example). Of the 10 counties with no such deaths, Cruz won half and the ones he lost were very close, like 2%. Overall, Cruz won in the places in KY where folks were clean-living, though he lost the state (which like much of the modern South is having a drug epidemic).

    So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. The ones who still go the church, who work, who stay married, and who don’t get addicted to opioids. Places populated with such people such as Utah, or western Michigan, or Iowa, or those outnumbered clean counties in Kentucky, vote for Cruz.

    As for Cruz’s alleged personal issues – who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz. But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types (Jimmy Swaggart?).

    Fiorina is not pro-choice:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/pro-life-carly-fiorina-announces-gop-presidential-bid-its-democrats-who-are-extreme-on-abortion/

    But I agree, Cruz’s choice of her was bizarre, especially right before the IN primary. Does anyone know if she was popular among California’s Republicans? She was their candidate for governor.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Does anyone know if she was popular among California’s Republicans?"

    I lived in California until 2011 (she ran for the Senate in 2010), and I never saw any evidence she was popular among the rank-and-file. Her candidacy was promoted by the media (until the primary was held, at which point they shifted back to supporting whichever stiff had a "D" next to their name, of course...Barbara Boxer, in this instance). The media didn't want Tom Campbell to be the Republican nominee, because there was some danger he might've actually freakin' won the general. No danger of that with Carly.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Regarding Reaganolatry:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/10/27/the-myth-of-reagan-the-conservative-n207142

    On Fiorina:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/21/trump-is-no-conservative-but-neither-iscarly-fiorina-n2041974

    Fiorina wasn't any more popular in CA for a a GOP candidate, which is to say, not much at all. If she had been popular in CA, she would have won her election. Also, then and now, Fiorina agreed with Senator Barbara Boxer's DREAM Act, and is publicly now supporting it again. And THIS is the "VP" that Cruz wants to run with. Which means, that all of his alleged tough talk on the issue of immigration has been totally bogus.


    "As for Cruz’s alleged personal issues – who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz."

    But you don't actually know. And therefore, as politicians of both parties have had less than stellar personal lives, it is totally relevant to discuss a so called "Evangelical" politician and whether or not he is less than stellar in his marriage. See, Americans will forgive the sinner but seldom the hypocrite. And if even 10% of these allegations are true, then it means that Lyin' Ted is indeed a hypocrite of the highest order. No one flinched or batted an eye when these types of stories ran vs both Clinton and Edwards. But what's good for the goose, as the saying goes.

    "But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types"

    Uh, yes. Now you've just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.


    "Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don’t go to church."

    Totally bogus statement. An Evangelical's faith commitment is not soley based on weekly church attendance, not that you would know that, however. In fact, except for The Last Real Calvinist poster here, I dare say that most of Steve's regular commenters, while very informative, helpful, and many with exceptionally high IQs, probably would not consider themselves very Evangelical whatsoever, for the most part.

    "I don’t have such data for the entire South,"

    I do. I use common sense and observe how each state has voted. Common sense says that Southerners reside in the South. It also is well known that most white southerners tend to be more religious and conservative than any other region of the US, and therefore they tend to vote for the GOP by wide margins. It is irrelevant whether or not each individual who lives in that region is a "true" Evangelical Christian. I assume you're not a theologian and so cannot definitely judge each person on their private and most personal faith. Therefore, all we have left is the consensus, namely, how each state GOP primary has voted. And those results are resoundingly clear: Trump has won the entire South. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that he will win the entire South come November in the GE.

    "So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans."

    Stand by it all you want without direct clear cut written evidence. I however will go by common sense election results broken down by primary states as a whole. It adds up to one clear thing: Donald Trump is the number one clear obvious favorite candidate among Southern GOP voters as a whole. When he wins the GOP nomination, they will overwhelmingly support him in November. No reason at all to think that they wouldn't.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don't know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc. In heavily Evangelical and conservative SC Trump bashed W for his failure of a war in Iraq. Guess what? Trump won SC quite convincingly. That would've been unheard of even four or five yrs ago. This tends to mean that not all Evangelicals have this worship of past candidates much less lockstep march on the issues that the donors, globalists and other self-appointed leaders tell them to support.

    But taking it upon yourself to play judge and determine who and who is not a real, authentic Evangelical frankly smacks of intolerance. But then, unfortunately, this is one of the stereotypical downsides of Evangelicals, namely, that they are very judgmental and Lyin' Ted appears to fit this bill himself. Notice how he dissed 'NY values' while taking NY $$ from his globalist donors while his wife sits on the board of Goldman-Sachs. This is known in everyday language as a hypocrite. If the National Enquirer story on him is true (first put out by Evangelical candidate Marco Rubio by the way) then it all helps to frame a picture of a hypocrite willing to play both sides of the issues when he means very little of what he says in public.

  151. @Ed
    Skipping the weird 200+ comment pop culture thread further up, I skimmed through this and think AP has a point. Trump did execute a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It would have been unthinkable last year that the Republicans would nominate someone who has been critical of the invasion of Iraq and of NAFTA. Trump has criticized or gotten into very public arguments with the last three Republican presidential nominees.

    Many of the people voting for Trump in the primaries are non-Republicans taking advantage of "open primaries", which I don't quite understand. Cruz has been beating him where the nomination contests are both restricted to party activists and in places where the Republicans get the highest general election vote percentages. Its fair to say that if you were to construct an ideal politician for Republican activists, you would get something like Ted Cruz. Of course, such a creature would find it hard to get over 20% of the vote outside of places like Texas. To win elections, Republicans have usually nominated someone who is more like Kasich.

    Sort of the mirror process happened with the Democratic Party this year, since Sanders for most of his career has not been a Democratic, and polls and geography shows that his supporters generally are independents voting in the Democratic primary and he does best in localities that are not controlled by the Democrats. The Democratic establishment has tighter control over their party. Hilary Clinton is sort of like a Democratic version of Cruz, the ideal candidate for Democratic activists who is unappealing to everyone else, though in this case they are actually nominating here.

    The Wikipedia contributors have aggregated the vote totals of candidates in presidential primaries, which is both difficult to do and interesting. So far in 2016, they aggregate in the Republican nomination contests as follows:

    Trump 39.7%
    Cruz 27.1%
    Kasich 14.4%
    Rubio 13.7%

    Usually in the later nomination contests the leading candidate's overall vote percentage increases.

    By the time everything was over, these were the aggregated percentages of the Republican vote past nominees wound up with, excluding years where in an incumbent Republican president ran for re-election:

    2012 Romney 52.1%
    2008 McCain 46.6%
    2000 GW Bush 62.0%
    1996 Dole 58.8%
    1988 GHW Bush 67.9%
    1980 Reagan 57.8%

    Trump's aggregated percentage will be higher once this is all over, but he probably won't wind up with over 50% as has been the case (except in 2008) with past nominees.

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn't have Hilary Clinton's vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.

    Wikipedia for some reason doesn’t have Hilary Clinton’s vote total this year. In 2008, she got 50.4% of the aggregated Democratic presidential primary vote. Kerry got 61% in the ridiculous 2004 contest. Bill Clinton wound up with 52% in 1992, Dukakis with 42.4%, and Mondale with 38.3%. I have no idea what the significance of this is.

    Supposedly Sanders supporters have hijacked Wikipedia and are keeping the popular vote percentages off the site because it makes their candidate look bad. I did the calculations myself last night, and Clinton is beating Sanders in the total popular vote 56% to 42%. This may improve with all the black-heavy states (where Sanders got murdered) now in the can.

  152. @Jack D
    Historically (under the Shah), Israel had a great relationship with Iran and its enemies were Sunni. In the Middle East, people switch sides all the time. Your former enemy becomes your ally and vice versa.

    Yes, yes, 1000 times yes! But that just goes to show that our alliance with Israel is not unbreakable, either.

  153. Back in 2012 Joe Biden campaigned heavily in the Upper Midwest and went out of his way to emphasize that Obama would never dream of taking their guns away. Then a month after the election they started pushing their big gun-grabbing bill that only got stopped when a filibuster was sustained in the Senate. Whether or not this will hurt the Ds remains to be seen but given Hillary’s history I doubt it will help them.

  154. @Jon0815

    Fiorina was the Republican candidate for NY governor once. Does anyone know if she is popular among Republicans in CA (clearly she isn’t among the general public)?
     
    Fiorina won the GOP Senate primary in CA with over 50% of the vote in a 3-person race. She never ran for governor of NY.

    Was Carly suffering from cancer when she ran for Senate? She seemed to mostly disappear during the general election campaign, but I didn’t hold that against her because I assumed she was in a life or death battle with cancer.

  155. “Supposedly Sanders supporters have hijacked Wikipedia and are keeping the popular vote percentages off the site because it makes their candidate look bad.”

    That’s interesting, however I remember that we’ve been waiting a long time to get the actual vote totals from the Iowa Caucus. It may have something to do with that.

    Sanders will probably wind up with over 40% and will have come the closest to the White House of any socialist in US history, and also of any Jew with the arguable exception of Joe Lieberman (Lieberman’s own presidential candidacy flopped, but there could have been a situation in 2000 where the election went to Congress, and the Senate picked him for VP while the House deadlocked with the presidential selection). His results will also compare favorably with past runners-up John Edwards, Bill Bradley, and Jerry Brown (all at 20%), plus Jesse Jackson (29%), Gary Hart (36%), Ted Kennedy (38%), and Jerry Brown (14%). So there is really nothing here to be embarrassed about.

  156. @Ozymandias
    "Trump has recently been getting Reagan-like percentages because the recent contests having been in his home turf."

    So, in tallying Reagan's 60% you didn't include his home turf?

    Reagan got 80% in California, much better than Trump got in New York, but by then Reagan was the sure winner so the comparison isn’t so parallel.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The demographics were different in 1980 vs 2016. Also, CA's primary then as now is rather later in the primary season so basically RR ran unopposed. RR also won CA in both '80 and '84, the last time CA voted for the GOP was in '88.

    What IS relevant, is that TRUMP received a much higher percentage of winning his own state of NY, than did either Cruz OR Kasich. (Trump finished second in both TX and OH and was about 6-8 points behind in each primary. This strongly suggests that both TX and OH GOPs will be fine voting for him in the GE).

    See, you do have to learn how to finish the sentence because when you don't so many gaffes, inaccuracies, distortions, perhaps wishful thinking bordering on outright lying tend to take place.
  157. @AP
    Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don't go to church. I don't have such data for the entire South, but there is a map of deaths from prescription drug overdose by county in Kentucky. Trump won, often in landslides, those counties in Kentucky with the highest rates of such deaths (65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example). Of the 10 counties with no such deaths, Cruz won half and the ones he lost were very close, like 2%. Overall, Cruz won in the places in KY where folks were clean-living, though he lost the state (which like much of the modern South is having a drug epidemic).

    So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. The ones who still go the church, who work, who stay married, and who don't get addicted to opioids. Places populated with such people such as Utah, or western Michigan, or Iowa, or those outnumbered clean counties in Kentucky, vote for Cruz.

    As for Cruz's alleged personal issues - who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz. But even if true - traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types (Jimmy Swaggart?).

    Fiorina is not pro-choice:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/pro-life-carly-fiorina-announces-gop-presidential-bid-its-democrats-who-are-extreme-on-abortion/

    But I agree, Cruz's choice of her was bizarre, especially right before the IN primary. Does anyone know if she was popular among California's Republicans? She was their candidate for governor.

    Does anyone know if she was popular among California’s Republicans?

    I lived in California until 2011 (she ran for the Senate in 2010), and I never saw any evidence she was popular among the rank-and-file. Her candidacy was promoted by the media (until the primary was held, at which point they shifted back to supporting whichever stiff had a “D” next to their name, of course…Barbara Boxer, in this instance). The media didn’t want Tom Campbell to be the Republican nominee, because there was some danger he might’ve actually freakin’ won the general. No danger of that with Carly.

  158. Ed says:
    @Jon0815
    Reality Check: Primary performance has no relationship to general election performance. In every poll of PA, Trump does worse against Hillary! than Cruz, just as he does worse against her in every national poll. And after Trump loses to Hillary! in a landslide, we will likely get an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of 8, because his loss will wrongly be blamed on his immigration stance, rather than his repellent personal traits.

    My question to Trump supporters: Given that Trump polls 7 points worse vs. Hillary! than Cruz, what exactly is the Big Payoff you expect to get from Trump, that you won't get from Cruz, which is so fantastic it justifies spotting Hillary! 7 points?

    Bear in mind that on immigration, Trump's signature issue, there really isn't much substantive difference between them, in fact Cruz has a slightly better NumbersUSA score than Trump does.

    It’s early. Trump’s weakness in general election polls during these past few weeks is due mostly to Republicans not supporting him. You have to figure that changes once he’s the nominee and the battle against Hillary starts in earnest.

    Another thing the polls don’t project out turnout much. That’s a big wildcard in all of this, who will show up on Election Day?

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    It’s early. Trump’s weakness in general election polls during these past few weeks is due mostly to Republicans not supporting him. You have to figure that changes once he’s the nominee and the battle against Hillary starts in earnest.
     
    That's just a theory. You're betting a lot on that theory being right.

    What we know for a fact is that vs. Hillary!, Cruz only has to climb out of a 2-point polling hole, while Trump has to climb out of a 9-point polling hole. So again, what's the Yuge Payoff with Trump that justifies the gamble?
  159. @AP
    Reagan got 80% in California, much better than Trump got in New York, but by then Reagan was the sure winner so the comparison isn't so parallel.

    The demographics were different in 1980 vs 2016. Also, CA’s primary then as now is rather later in the primary season so basically RR ran unopposed. RR also won CA in both ’80 and ’84, the last time CA voted for the GOP was in ’88.

    What IS relevant, is that TRUMP received a much higher percentage of winning his own state of NY, than did either Cruz OR Kasich. (Trump finished second in both TX and OH and was about 6-8 points behind in each primary. This strongly suggests that both TX and OH GOPs will be fine voting for him in the GE).

    See, you do have to learn how to finish the sentence because when you don’t so many gaffes, inaccuracies, distortions, perhaps wishful thinking bordering on outright lying tend to take place.

    • Replies: @AP

    Also, CA’s primary then as now is rather later in the primary season so basically RR ran unopposed
     
    That's what I said when I wrote "but by then Reagan was the sure winner so the comparison isn’t so parallel."

    What IS relevant, is that TRUMP received a much higher percentage of winning his own state of NY, than did either Cruz OR Kasich.
     
    Speaking of "finishing sentences" - you forgot to mention that when Cruz won TX and Kasich won OH there were more candidates in the race than when Trump won NY. This narrows that gap, though doesn't close it completely.

    Also, Republicans are a minority in NY but not in TX or in OH. Trump won a bigger slice of a smaller pie in the NY primary.


    (Trump finished second in both TX and OH and was about 6-8 points behind in each primary. This strongly suggests that both TX and OH GOPs will be fine voting for him in the GE).
     
    Trump trailed Kasich by about 11 points in Ohio and Cruz by about 17 points in Texas.

    What was it you said about " inaccuracies, distortions, perhaps wishful thinking bordering on outright lying"?

  160. @AP
    Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don't go to church. I don't have such data for the entire South, but there is a map of deaths from prescription drug overdose by county in Kentucky. Trump won, often in landslides, those counties in Kentucky with the highest rates of such deaths (65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example). Of the 10 counties with no such deaths, Cruz won half and the ones he lost were very close, like 2%. Overall, Cruz won in the places in KY where folks were clean-living, though he lost the state (which like much of the modern South is having a drug epidemic).

    So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans. The ones who still go the church, who work, who stay married, and who don't get addicted to opioids. Places populated with such people such as Utah, or western Michigan, or Iowa, or those outnumbered clean counties in Kentucky, vote for Cruz.

    As for Cruz's alleged personal issues - who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz. But even if true - traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types (Jimmy Swaggart?).

    Fiorina is not pro-choice:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/pro-life-carly-fiorina-announces-gop-presidential-bid-its-democrats-who-are-extreme-on-abortion/

    But I agree, Cruz's choice of her was bizarre, especially right before the IN primary. Does anyone know if she was popular among California's Republicans? She was their candidate for governor.

    Regarding Reaganolatry:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/10/27/the-myth-of-reagan-the-conservative-n207142

    On Fiorina:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/21/trump-is-no-conservative-but-neither-iscarly-fiorina-n2041974

    Fiorina wasn’t any more popular in CA for a a GOP candidate, which is to say, not much at all. If she had been popular in CA, she would have won her election. Also, then and now, Fiorina agreed with Senator Barbara Boxer’s DREAM Act, and is publicly now supporting it again. And THIS is the “VP” that Cruz wants to run with. Which means, that all of his alleged tough talk on the issue of immigration has been totally bogus.

    “As for Cruz’s alleged personal issues – who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz.”

    But you don’t actually know. And therefore, as politicians of both parties have had less than stellar personal lives, it is totally relevant to discuss a so called “Evangelical” politician and whether or not he is less than stellar in his marriage. See, Americans will forgive the sinner but seldom the hypocrite. And if even 10% of these allegations are true, then it means that Lyin’ Ted is indeed a hypocrite of the highest order. No one flinched or batted an eye when these types of stories ran vs both Clinton and Edwards. But what’s good for the goose, as the saying goes.

    “But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types”

    Uh, yes. Now you’ve just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.

    “Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don’t go to church.”

    Totally bogus statement. An Evangelical’s faith commitment is not soley based on weekly church attendance, not that you would know that, however. In fact, except for The Last Real Calvinist poster here, I dare say that most of Steve’s regular commenters, while very informative, helpful, and many with exceptionally high IQs, probably would not consider themselves very Evangelical whatsoever, for the most part.

    “I don’t have such data for the entire South,”

    I do. I use common sense and observe how each state has voted. Common sense says that Southerners reside in the South. It also is well known that most white southerners tend to be more religious and conservative than any other region of the US, and therefore they tend to vote for the GOP by wide margins. It is irrelevant whether or not each individual who lives in that region is a “true” Evangelical Christian. I assume you’re not a theologian and so cannot definitely judge each person on their private and most personal faith. Therefore, all we have left is the consensus, namely, how each state GOP primary has voted. And those results are resoundingly clear: Trump has won the entire South. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that he will win the entire South come November in the GE.

    “So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans.”

    Stand by it all you want without direct clear cut written evidence. I however will go by common sense election results broken down by primary states as a whole. It adds up to one clear thing: Donald Trump is the number one clear obvious favorite candidate among Southern GOP voters as a whole. When he wins the GOP nomination, they will overwhelmingly support him in November. No reason at all to think that they wouldn’t.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don’t know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc. In heavily Evangelical and conservative SC Trump bashed W for his failure of a war in Iraq. Guess what? Trump won SC quite convincingly. That would’ve been unheard of even four or five yrs ago. This tends to mean that not all Evangelicals have this worship of past candidates much less lockstep march on the issues that the donors, globalists and other self-appointed leaders tell them to support.

    But taking it upon yourself to play judge and determine who and who is not a real, authentic Evangelical frankly smacks of intolerance. But then, unfortunately, this is one of the stereotypical downsides of Evangelicals, namely, that they are very judgmental and Lyin’ Ted appears to fit this bill himself. Notice how he dissed ‘NY values’ while taking NY $$ from his globalist donors while his wife sits on the board of Goldman-Sachs. This is known in everyday language as a hypocrite. If the National Enquirer story on him is true (first put out by Evangelical candidate Marco Rubio by the way) then it all helps to frame a picture of a hypocrite willing to play both sides of the issues when he means very little of what he says in public.

    • Replies: @AP

    “But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types”

    Uh, yes. Now you’ve just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.
     
    A hypocrite who sins and then publicly repents seems to be more acceptable to Evangelicals than a "proud" sinner such as Trump, who openly bragged about sleeping with married women. The two are not the same.

    And note, the only "evidence" if Cruz's infidelity comes from the National Enquirer, which is now running a story linking Cruz's father to the Kennedy assassination.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don’t know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc.
     
    Cruz barely beats Trump among self-described Evangelicals, 41% to 38%, but Cruz easily beats Trump among regular churchgoers, 44% to 29%.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/pew-poll-ted-cruz-backed-by-white-evangelicals-weekly-church-goers-trump-by-white-mainline-protestants-160718/

    In SC, Trump got 34% of the Evangelical vote. Evangelicals split their vote among many candidates. Cruz and Rubio (who describes himself as a born-again Christian) together got more votes than did Trump in SC.
    , @AP

    “I don’t have such data for the entire South,”

    I do. I use common sense
     
    "Common sense" isn't data. You provided no data.

    Here is a post with a link to data showing deaths from overdose by county in KY:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/primaries-open-thread-republican/#comment-1349751

    This can be matched with data from the primary. You will see, as I wrote, that "Trump carried every one of the top ten counties with the highest prescription drug overdose death rates in KY. Many of these were landslides – Trump beat Cruz 65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example.

    Cruz carried 5 of the 10 counties with no reported deaths from prescription drug overdose. Moreover his losses tended to be closer – he lost Barren county to Trump by 2%.
    -------------------------

    As I said, Cruz wins in traditional areas with intact wholesome societies.
  161. @Jon0815
    Reality Check: Primary performance has no relationship to general election performance. In every poll of PA, Trump does worse against Hillary! than Cruz, just as he does worse against her in every national poll. And after Trump loses to Hillary! in a landslide, we will likely get an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of 8, because his loss will wrongly be blamed on his immigration stance, rather than his repellent personal traits.

    My question to Trump supporters: Given that Trump polls 7 points worse vs. Hillary! than Cruz, what exactly is the Big Payoff you expect to get from Trump, that you won't get from Cruz, which is so fantastic it justifies spotting Hillary! 7 points?

    Bear in mind that on immigration, Trump's signature issue, there really isn't much substantive difference between them, in fact Cruz has a slightly better NumbersUSA score than Trump does.

    The difference between Trump and Cruz on immigration is that Cruz is lying.

    Also, if Hillary’s biggest weakness is all the post-hoc bribery she’s received, how is Cruz, whose wife works for Goldman, going to use that? It would be like nominating the guy who inspired Obamacare to run against Obamacare, again.

  162. @PistolPete
    You pretty much laid out Hillary's talking points for the fall. Well done. You should probably apply for a job at her campaign

    You pretty much laid out Hillary’s talking points for the fall. Well done. You should probably apply for a job at her campaign

    Or apply for a raise.

  163. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The demographics were different in 1980 vs 2016. Also, CA's primary then as now is rather later in the primary season so basically RR ran unopposed. RR also won CA in both '80 and '84, the last time CA voted for the GOP was in '88.

    What IS relevant, is that TRUMP received a much higher percentage of winning his own state of NY, than did either Cruz OR Kasich. (Trump finished second in both TX and OH and was about 6-8 points behind in each primary. This strongly suggests that both TX and OH GOPs will be fine voting for him in the GE).

    See, you do have to learn how to finish the sentence because when you don't so many gaffes, inaccuracies, distortions, perhaps wishful thinking bordering on outright lying tend to take place.

    Also, CA’s primary then as now is rather later in the primary season so basically RR ran unopposed

    That’s what I said when I wrote “but by then Reagan was the sure winner so the comparison isn’t so parallel.”

    What IS relevant, is that TRUMP received a much higher percentage of winning his own state of NY, than did either Cruz OR Kasich.

    Speaking of “finishing sentences” – you forgot to mention that when Cruz won TX and Kasich won OH there were more candidates in the race than when Trump won NY. This narrows that gap, though doesn’t close it completely.

    Also, Republicans are a minority in NY but not in TX or in OH. Trump won a bigger slice of a smaller pie in the NY primary.

    (Trump finished second in both TX and OH and was about 6-8 points behind in each primary. This strongly suggests that both TX and OH GOPs will be fine voting for him in the GE).

    Trump trailed Kasich by about 11 points in Ohio and Cruz by about 17 points in Texas.

    What was it you said about ” inaccuracies, distortions, perhaps wishful thinking bordering on outright lying”?

  164. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Regarding Reaganolatry:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/10/27/the-myth-of-reagan-the-conservative-n207142

    On Fiorina:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/21/trump-is-no-conservative-but-neither-iscarly-fiorina-n2041974

    Fiorina wasn't any more popular in CA for a a GOP candidate, which is to say, not much at all. If she had been popular in CA, she would have won her election. Also, then and now, Fiorina agreed with Senator Barbara Boxer's DREAM Act, and is publicly now supporting it again. And THIS is the "VP" that Cruz wants to run with. Which means, that all of his alleged tough talk on the issue of immigration has been totally bogus.


    "As for Cruz’s alleged personal issues – who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz."

    But you don't actually know. And therefore, as politicians of both parties have had less than stellar personal lives, it is totally relevant to discuss a so called "Evangelical" politician and whether or not he is less than stellar in his marriage. See, Americans will forgive the sinner but seldom the hypocrite. And if even 10% of these allegations are true, then it means that Lyin' Ted is indeed a hypocrite of the highest order. No one flinched or batted an eye when these types of stories ran vs both Clinton and Edwards. But what's good for the goose, as the saying goes.

    "But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types"

    Uh, yes. Now you've just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.


    "Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don’t go to church."

    Totally bogus statement. An Evangelical's faith commitment is not soley based on weekly church attendance, not that you would know that, however. In fact, except for The Last Real Calvinist poster here, I dare say that most of Steve's regular commenters, while very informative, helpful, and many with exceptionally high IQs, probably would not consider themselves very Evangelical whatsoever, for the most part.

    "I don’t have such data for the entire South,"

    I do. I use common sense and observe how each state has voted. Common sense says that Southerners reside in the South. It also is well known that most white southerners tend to be more religious and conservative than any other region of the US, and therefore they tend to vote for the GOP by wide margins. It is irrelevant whether or not each individual who lives in that region is a "true" Evangelical Christian. I assume you're not a theologian and so cannot definitely judge each person on their private and most personal faith. Therefore, all we have left is the consensus, namely, how each state GOP primary has voted. And those results are resoundingly clear: Trump has won the entire South. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that he will win the entire South come November in the GE.

    "So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans."

    Stand by it all you want without direct clear cut written evidence. I however will go by common sense election results broken down by primary states as a whole. It adds up to one clear thing: Donald Trump is the number one clear obvious favorite candidate among Southern GOP voters as a whole. When he wins the GOP nomination, they will overwhelmingly support him in November. No reason at all to think that they wouldn't.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don't know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc. In heavily Evangelical and conservative SC Trump bashed W for his failure of a war in Iraq. Guess what? Trump won SC quite convincingly. That would've been unheard of even four or five yrs ago. This tends to mean that not all Evangelicals have this worship of past candidates much less lockstep march on the issues that the donors, globalists and other self-appointed leaders tell them to support.

    But taking it upon yourself to play judge and determine who and who is not a real, authentic Evangelical frankly smacks of intolerance. But then, unfortunately, this is one of the stereotypical downsides of Evangelicals, namely, that they are very judgmental and Lyin' Ted appears to fit this bill himself. Notice how he dissed 'NY values' while taking NY $$ from his globalist donors while his wife sits on the board of Goldman-Sachs. This is known in everyday language as a hypocrite. If the National Enquirer story on him is true (first put out by Evangelical candidate Marco Rubio by the way) then it all helps to frame a picture of a hypocrite willing to play both sides of the issues when he means very little of what he says in public.

    “But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types”

    Uh, yes. Now you’ve just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.

    A hypocrite who sins and then publicly repents seems to be more acceptable to Evangelicals than a “proud” sinner such as Trump, who openly bragged about sleeping with married women. The two are not the same.

    And note, the only “evidence” if Cruz’s infidelity comes from the National Enquirer, which is now running a story linking Cruz’s father to the Kennedy assassination.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don’t know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc.

    Cruz barely beats Trump among self-described Evangelicals, 41% to 38%, but Cruz easily beats Trump among regular churchgoers, 44% to 29%.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/pew-poll-ted-cruz-backed-by-white-evangelicals-weekly-church-goers-trump-by-white-mainline-protestants-160718/

    In SC, Trump got 34% of the Evangelical vote. Evangelicals split their vote among many candidates. Cruz and Rubio (who describes himself as a born-again Christian) together got more votes than did Trump in SC.

  165. AP says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Regarding Reaganolatry:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/10/27/the-myth-of-reagan-the-conservative-n207142

    On Fiorina:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/21/trump-is-no-conservative-but-neither-iscarly-fiorina-n2041974

    Fiorina wasn't any more popular in CA for a a GOP candidate, which is to say, not much at all. If she had been popular in CA, she would have won her election. Also, then and now, Fiorina agreed with Senator Barbara Boxer's DREAM Act, and is publicly now supporting it again. And THIS is the "VP" that Cruz wants to run with. Which means, that all of his alleged tough talk on the issue of immigration has been totally bogus.


    "As for Cruz’s alleged personal issues – who knows if the Enquirer story is true. I suspect not, because unlike in the case of liberals such as Clinton or Edwards the mass media would love to skewer a conservative such as Cruz."

    But you don't actually know. And therefore, as politicians of both parties have had less than stellar personal lives, it is totally relevant to discuss a so called "Evangelical" politician and whether or not he is less than stellar in his marriage. See, Americans will forgive the sinner but seldom the hypocrite. And if even 10% of these allegations are true, then it means that Lyin' Ted is indeed a hypocrite of the highest order. No one flinched or batted an eye when these types of stories ran vs both Clinton and Edwards. But what's good for the goose, as the saying goes.

    "But even if true – traditional Evangelicals do have a habit of following such types"

    Uh, yes. Now you've just made my point, thank you. As Evangelicals can vote for various candidates of less than stellar private lives, then it means that they can certainly back and support Donald Trump with their votes. You did walk into that one, and I thank you for making my point.


    "Cruz wins among self-described Evangelicals who go to church every week, Trump wins among self-described Evangelicals who don’t go to church."

    Totally bogus statement. An Evangelical's faith commitment is not soley based on weekly church attendance, not that you would know that, however. In fact, except for The Last Real Calvinist poster here, I dare say that most of Steve's regular commenters, while very informative, helpful, and many with exceptionally high IQs, probably would not consider themselves very Evangelical whatsoever, for the most part.

    "I don’t have such data for the entire South,"

    I do. I use common sense and observe how each state has voted. Common sense says that Southerners reside in the South. It also is well known that most white southerners tend to be more religious and conservative than any other region of the US, and therefore they tend to vote for the GOP by wide margins. It is irrelevant whether or not each individual who lives in that region is a "true" Evangelical Christian. I assume you're not a theologian and so cannot definitely judge each person on their private and most personal faith. Therefore, all we have left is the consensus, namely, how each state GOP primary has voted. And those results are resoundingly clear: Trump has won the entire South. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume that he will win the entire South come November in the GE.

    "So, I stand by the statement that Cruz is the candidate of the traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans."

    Stand by it all you want without direct clear cut written evidence. I however will go by common sense election results broken down by primary states as a whole. It adds up to one clear thing: Donald Trump is the number one clear obvious favorite candidate among Southern GOP voters as a whole. When he wins the GOP nomination, they will overwhelmingly support him in November. No reason at all to think that they wouldn't.

    See, what you leave out of your litany of issues when describing these mythical Evangelicals (which apparently you are not one or else you don't know very many of them on a personal level) is that Evangelicals do not just vote their bibles. They also vote on issues such as: Immigration, trade, national sovereignty, etc. In heavily Evangelical and conservative SC Trump bashed W for his failure of a war in Iraq. Guess what? Trump won SC quite convincingly. That would've been unheard of even four or five yrs ago. This tends to mean that not all Evangelicals have this worship of past candidates much less lockstep march on the issues that the donors, globalists and other self-appointed leaders tell them to support.

    But taking it upon yourself to play judge and determine who and who is not a real, authentic Evangelical frankly smacks of intolerance. But then, unfortunately, this is one of the stereotypical downsides of Evangelicals, namely, that they are very judgmental and Lyin' Ted appears to fit this bill himself. Notice how he dissed 'NY values' while taking NY $$ from his globalist donors while his wife sits on the board of Goldman-Sachs. This is known in everyday language as a hypocrite. If the National Enquirer story on him is true (first put out by Evangelical candidate Marco Rubio by the way) then it all helps to frame a picture of a hypocrite willing to play both sides of the issues when he means very little of what he says in public.

    “I don’t have such data for the entire South,”

    I do. I use common sense

    “Common sense” isn’t data. You provided no data.

    Here is a post with a link to data showing deaths from overdose by county in KY:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/primaries-open-thread-republican/#comment-1349751

    This can be matched with data from the primary. You will see, as I wrote, that “Trump carried every one of the top ten counties with the highest prescription drug overdose death rates in KY. Many of these were landslides – Trump beat Cruz 65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example.

    Cruz carried 5 of the 10 counties with no reported deaths from prescription drug overdose. Moreover his losses tended to be closer – he lost Barren county to Trump by 2%.
    ————————-

    As I said, Cruz wins in traditional areas with intact wholesome societies.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You can look at the overall picture, which is to say, that Trump has won every single southern state. It doesn't matter how individual counties voted. What matters is that the bulk of white southerners are conservative, and the region is the most Evangelical in the US (I assume you are not an Evangelical since you don't write as if you clearly or personally know very many from a personal standpoint). Trump is winning each of these states. It is up to you to show any hardcore data that Trump, when he is the GOP's nominee, will not carry these southern states that he is clearly winning in the GE.

    In the Electoral College for the Presidency, individual counties do not matter. What counts is the entire state. As in: Winner take all. If Trump wins, say, FL then he receives all 29 electoral votes of that state, even if he happened to lose individual counties within FL. It doesn't matter.

    What matters from an election standpoint, is winning the entire state and Trump is clearly managing to do so.

    Also, it is interesting that you don't realize your own words coming back at you: TRUMP, and ONLY TRUMP, is the one GOP candidate who is bringing into the primaries new voters. As in, former Democrats; voters who have not voted in decades; voters who heretofore have been dissatisfied with the political process; etc. They are not voting for Kasich. They aren't voting for Cruz. They are only voting (rather unanimously) for Trump.

    Cruz, if he were the GOP nominee would not add very many new voters at all whatsoever. Indepedent/moderate voters won't easily stomach a perceived strongly pro-life; anti-gay; anti-environment; extreme form of conservatism across the board (whether or not the perceptions are accurate that remains the perception of Cruz).

    As I've stated with Mitt Romney and others. Since Ted Cruz, before this election cycle (outside TX) compared to Hillary Clinton, did not have the universal name recognition across generational lines, (and there are some voters who still aren't entirely familiar with him much less his candidacy) it will be very easy for Hillary to define Cruz to millions of moderate independent voters.

    And...what exactly can Ted Cruz offer non-Evangelical, socially liberal, moderate, independent voters? One tends to forget that they largely help to cancel out the Evangelical voters (who aren't a major factor in any southern region state). So again, what exactly does Cruz offer these millions of voters?

    Answer: Nothing. With that choice before them, they'll either vote for Hillary or stay home. Again and again: If Ted Cruz were all that, he would've attracted new voters to vote for him in the primaries. I don't see any clear evidence that he is attracting millions of new voters, millions of voters registering as GOP, or even a huge massive amount of GOP based excitement enthusiasm which translates into actual votes for his candidacy. If you are intellectually honest as well as accurate, (based on primary results per state and how each candidate won the state) you will see that this has been the case.

    You are simply a bit borderline to believe that 25 million TV viewers last August (most of them GOP leaning voters by the way) tuned in to watch a GOP debate because the majority of them were Ted Cruz supporters. Which leads to the other point: After 12 debates and numerous town hall meetings to state his case, and help explain what his policies are and what plans he wants to implement as president, Cruz continues to lose to Trump. Perhaps the voters, after watching the debates, simply aren't buying what he's been trying to sell.

    Outside the Mt Region/Plains states, Ted Cruz finishes quite poorly. In the Northeast he finishes very badly. In the South he has finished third and sometimes second. But never has he won those states that are inhabited by Evangelicals. Irony, is that Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders has won about the same number of states as Cruz. Sanders' supporters are the direct opposite of Cruz. They wouldn't vote for an Evangelical if their lives depended upon it. Some of them, perhaps as high as 20%, may be induced to vote for a more moderate candidate as Trump vs Hillary. But they certainly would never vote for Cruz.

    Cruz simply doesn't poll well with all segments of the country who aren't rabidly Evangelical. Outside of that one main segment, he simply isn't attracting much of anyone to vote for him. Those that would vote for Trump will simply stay home if he were to get the GOP nomination.

    Its understandable you don't like Trump, though I suspect he is closer to your generation so its a bit puzzling as to why this is the case.

    Cruz has been in the Senate for about 6 yrs, almost one full term. He has had all this time to introduce new legislation regarding patriotic immigration reform. He also could have taken the lead to introduce federal legislation to build a wall on the southern border (as a TX Senator he would know quite well about the problems with the southern border). He has not done so, and that's on him. Its very telling that AL Senator Jeff Sessions, who is an Evangelical but is also known for being very strong on immigration, trade issues, and other nationalistic issues has endorsed Trump. Wonder why? He certainly knows Ted Cruz in the Senate and would best know how reliable Cruz is and would be on the issue of immigration. Yet he chose not to endorse him.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/03/25/an-antiestablishment-candidate-the-real-ted-cruz-n2139172

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573


    As the GOP has controlled the Senate since '13, Show us the legislation and bills that Cruz has introduced in the Senate regarding his desire to build a wall on the southern border. Show us the legislation that Cruz has introduced regarding a temporary halt on Muslim immigration. Show us the legislation that Cruz has sponsored on curtailing the total number of immigration (including legal immigration). Show us, so that we as voters can decide if Cruz is truly on the side of patriotic immigration.

    You can't, because he has not done so and he has had nearly six years to introduce legislation that calls for building a wall to halt the massive influx of illegal aliens. If he had done so, he probably would have runaway with the nomination during the primary season. It is very, very telling that the one senator, Jeff Sessions, who is an Evangelical, who has been consistently on the side of stopping illegal immigration, who has been strongly vs. unfair trade policies that harm US's interests and ship jobs overseas, is now backing Trump and is campaigning with him.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You can say that all you like, but the fact remains that there are fewer and fewer of these types of "traditional areas" remaining in 2016 than there were decades ago. But then, if Cruz really cared about curtailing run away illegal immigration, outsourcing jobs while insourcing H-1B foreigners to take away native born American workers jobs, perhaps there would be more of these traditional areas. People in these southern states are perhaps turning to drugs because their jobs have been outsourced by unfair trade policies. Steve recently referenced an article on the white death since around 2000, that it has been increasing. One reason for this is that the jobs are either drying up, have been outsourced, or have been taken away due to illegal immigration.

    Again: Cruz has had nearly six whole yrs to introduce legislation on curtailing illegal immigration, reducing legal immigration, and building a wall on the Southern border. He has not done so. These reasons are among the reasons why Senator Sessions refused to endorse him and is now campaigning for Donald Trump.

    Note to all commenters here: In all these exchanges, I have stated the basics of some of Trump's officially stated policies, what he wants to accomplish, achieve in the White House as President, etc. while this person has not once, NOT ONCE, stated the various policies that Cruz wants to accomplish OR the legislation on immigration that he has introduced while a member of the Senate. Not once has he stated that Cruz's such and such bill will build a wall, or that Cruz's legislation will do this vs. unfair trade deals. Part of the overall picture. Trump discusses the issues while his rivals do not (and how can they, since they are beholden to the one percent global donorists).

    In larger part, this is why Trump is winning. Had Cruz introduced, taken the lead on these issues in the Senate, he could simply state in the debates "There you go again, Donald. Trying to steal and make your own the policies, legislation of which I've introduced in the Senate." He could then hold up before the cameras "here's a copy of my bill that I introduced. I want to build a wall on the TX border, and it will help stop illegal immigration etc etc. Here it is go to the website, folks, and read it for yourselves." Show us the wall on the southern border that Cruz has sponsored. I want to see a copy of this proposed bill/legislation that Cruz sponsored, taken the lead on.

    He didn't do that, because he's never introduced legislation on the immigration issue, which is why Trump has made the issue of illegal immigration, the wall, etc. his own. No one else was gonna even discuss it before the Donald brought it up and took the lead on the issue.
  166. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Rhetoric aside, in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA and supported Amnesty for millions of illegals in '86, as well as free trade policies and helped create the concept of NAFTA, was no conservative GOP. But at least he was an Evangelical.

    …in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA

    The things we “know” that aren’t true!

    In the first place, in 1967 nobody was “pro-choice”, nobody but a few radicals such as Pat Maginnis, Garrett Hardin, and Hugh Hefner. Reagan merely held the general Protestant attitude that the existing law was too strict, and needed a little easing up. Many Republicans agreed, and the opposite ends of the (then still narrow) issue, Jews and Catholics, were both solidly in the Democratic camp.

    The Therapeutic Abortion Act left the final decision where it had been all along, in the hospitals’
    abortion committees, not with the pregnant woman. A few more exceptions were granted, but there was some tightening as well. Reagan demanded that fetal deformity be dropped as a valid excuse, and that the upper age limit for statutory rape abortions be lowered to fourteen, to discourage fraud– which was rampant. He actually proposed these measures to slow down or block the bill in committee, but the sponsor tricked him and granted them. Reagan was thus embarrassed into signing.

    Still, this is a long, long way from “pro-choice”. If you don’t think so, try proposing a new Therapeutic Abortion Act to your local NARAL or NOW chapter!

    Reagan was played by more experienced politicians. Much like in 1986.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    If he was played numerous times, both in CA and in DC, then that makes Tip O'Neil's comment of him being an "affable dunce" even more relevant.
  167. @Ed
    It's early. Trump's weakness in general election polls during these past few weeks is due mostly to Republicans not supporting him. You have to figure that changes once he's the nominee and the battle against Hillary starts in earnest.

    Another thing the polls don't project out turnout much. That's a big wildcard in all of this, who will show up on Election Day?

    It’s early. Trump’s weakness in general election polls during these past few weeks is due mostly to Republicans not supporting him. You have to figure that changes once he’s the nominee and the battle against Hillary starts in earnest.

    That’s just a theory. You’re betting a lot on that theory being right.

    What we know for a fact is that vs. Hillary!, Cruz only has to climb out of a 2-point polling hole, while Trump has to climb out of a 9-point polling hole. So again, what’s the Yuge Payoff with Trump that justifies the gamble?

  168. @Jefferson
    "Yeah the hate Trump gets from blacks is a bit absurd. Is it because he doesn’t tolerate BLM nonsense? Because they think his “racism” towards illegals and Muslims must transfer to blacks?"

    African Americans who hate Donald Trump have the mentality that if you insult one Nonwhite group, you are basically insulting all Nonwhite groups. That is why the majority of African Americans are extremely offended by the things he says about Muslims, Latinos, and China.

    It's the all of us Nonwhites are in this thing together mentality. Also don't forget that a lot of African Americans have converted to Islam.

    We are basically at a point where there are only two races in America, White and Nonwhite. The immigrant groups coming to America are all assimilating into Negro victimhood status, they are not culturally assimilating into Whiteness.

    The 2020 U.S census should reflect this new America and only have to two racial categories, White and Nonwhite.

    Ming Na Wen, America Ferrera, Huma Abedin, and Serena Williams should all check the same racial box because they are all in this together.

    If you census combine Black, Brown, and Yellow together it makes them even more politically powerful than ever, they would be unstoppable. They would be like The Avengers, The Suicide Squad, The Watchmen, The X-Men and The Justice League all combined.

    NONWHITE POWER.

    Ferrera married a tall handsome Aryan man. She don’t hate whitey that much.

    But yes, the neoleft has done well at uniting the various ethnic minorities into a relatively universally anti-white force. Then we have Republican turncoats like Little Marco who go out of their way to play up their ethnic alienness, and Nimrata Haley who throw the heritage of their subjects under the bus in the name of Progress.

  169. AP says:
    @Concerned Scientist
    >>Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans
    ...Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans

    This is partly true, but mostly false. Partly true in that Cruz does better with evangelicals than with other groups, and Kasich does better with college graduates than he does with other groups; BUT Trump does better with evangelicals than Cruz and Trump does better with college graduates than Kasich. So, your smear of Trump supporters as a Walking Dead legion of toothless opiate-addicted morons is MOSTLY BS.

    Also, remember how a major plot point in LA Confidential was whores cut to look like movie stars? I think it's more accurate to say Cruz is a whore cut to look like an evangelical, and Kasich is a whore cut to look like a country club Republican. Both have extremely close connections to the globalist financial industry.

    <blockquote "Cruz represents the old traditional Evangelical and small town Republicans
    …Kasich (and before him Rubio) represents big business, professional, “country club” Republicans"

    This is partly true, but mostly false. Partly true in that Cruz does better with evangelicals than with other groups, and Kasich does better with college graduates than he does with other groups; BUT Trump does better with evangelicals than Cruz and Trump does better with college graduates than Kasich

    As I pointed out elsewhere, Cruz does do slightly better with Evangelicals than does Trump (41% to 38%), and a lot better with people who go to church every Sunday than does Trump (44% to 29%):

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/pew-poll-ted-cruz-backed-by-white-evangelicals-weekly-church-goers-trump-by-white-mainline-protestants-160718/

    The article was written prior to Trump’s romp in the Northeast; though there aren’t many Evangelicals there than in other places his numbers probably improved.

    The issue with Kasich is trickier because the wealthy, professional-class Republicans had earlier largely flocked to Rubio in the earlier primaries. So for example in SC, Rubio beat Trump 27% to 25% among college graduates (Kasich got another 10%), but Trump got 41% among non college graduates (vs. 17% Rubio, 4% Kasich). In Virginia, Rubio got 37% among college graduates, Trump 27% with another 13% for Kasich; among non college graduates the % votes were 43%, 25% and 4% for Trump, Rubio, Kasich, respectively. In Michigan Kasich won among college graduates with 30%, vs. 27% Trump and 14% Rubio. Trump got 46% of the nongraduate vote, vs. 19% Kasich, 6% Rubio.

    Trump won among all groups in his home territory in the Northeast, of course.

  170. @Steve Sailer
    Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a master politician at the top of his game in his third run for the GOP nomination.

    Reagan has certainly airbrushed his first run out of the history books. Only realised that when I listened to this fantastic interview with Roger Stone.

    Reagan really needed to win in 76, firmly in decline by the start of his second term.

  171. @Jack Hanson
    This is my guess. I've seen some farcical names put out there (Susana Martinez, Mia Love?!) which is basically identity cucking so hard it registers on a seismograph.

    Actually think it would be a disaster if Trump picks anyone but a white male, pandering now would be a sign of weakness.

    Lets keep the Kris Kobach for VP meme alive too, Trump will need someone who can carry on the good work.

  172. @Reg Cæsar

    …in many ways former Democrat (up thru his early fifties) who signed pro-choice legislation in CA
     
    The things we "know" that aren't true!

    In the first place, in 1967 nobody was "pro-choice", nobody but a few radicals such as Pat Maginnis, Garrett Hardin, and Hugh Hefner. Reagan merely held the general Protestant attitude that the existing law was too strict, and needed a little easing up. Many Republicans agreed, and the opposite ends of the (then still narrow) issue, Jews and Catholics, were both solidly in the Democratic camp.

    The Therapeutic Abortion Act left the final decision where it had been all along, in the hospitals'
    abortion committees, not with the pregnant woman. A few more exceptions were granted, but there was some tightening as well. Reagan demanded that fetal deformity be dropped as a valid excuse, and that the upper age limit for statutory rape abortions be lowered to fourteen, to discourage fraud-- which was rampant. He actually proposed these measures to slow down or block the bill in committee, but the sponsor tricked him and granted them. Reagan was thus embarrassed into signing.

    Still, this is a long, long way from "pro-choice". If you don't think so, try proposing a new Therapeutic Abortion Act to your local NARAL or NOW chapter!

    Reagan was played by more experienced politicians. Much like in 1986.

    If he was played numerous times, both in CA and in DC, then that makes Tip O’Neil’s comment of him being an “affable dunce” even more relevant.

  173. @AP

    “I don’t have such data for the entire South,”

    I do. I use common sense
     
    "Common sense" isn't data. You provided no data.

    Here is a post with a link to data showing deaths from overdose by county in KY:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/primaries-open-thread-republican/#comment-1349751

    This can be matched with data from the primary. You will see, as I wrote, that "Trump carried every one of the top ten counties with the highest prescription drug overdose death rates in KY. Many of these were landslides – Trump beat Cruz 65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example.

    Cruz carried 5 of the 10 counties with no reported deaths from prescription drug overdose. Moreover his losses tended to be closer – he lost Barren county to Trump by 2%.
    -------------------------

    As I said, Cruz wins in traditional areas with intact wholesome societies.

    You can look at the overall picture, which is to say, that Trump has won every single southern state. It doesn’t matter how individual counties voted. What matters is that the bulk of white southerners are conservative, and the region is the most Evangelical in the US (I assume you are not an Evangelical since you don’t write as if you clearly or personally know very many from a personal standpoint). Trump is winning each of these states. It is up to you to show any hardcore data that Trump, when he is the GOP’s nominee, will not carry these southern states that he is clearly winning in the GE.

    In the Electoral College for the Presidency, individual counties do not matter. What counts is the entire state. As in: Winner take all. If Trump wins, say, FL then he receives all 29 electoral votes of that state, even if he happened to lose individual counties within FL. It doesn’t matter.

    What matters from an election standpoint, is winning the entire state and Trump is clearly managing to do so.

    Also, it is interesting that you don’t realize your own words coming back at you: TRUMP, and ONLY TRUMP, is the one GOP candidate who is bringing into the primaries new voters. As in, former Democrats; voters who have not voted in decades; voters who heretofore have been dissatisfied with the political process; etc. They are not voting for Kasich. They aren’t voting for Cruz. They are only voting (rather unanimously) for Trump.

    Cruz, if he were the GOP nominee would not add very many new voters at all whatsoever. Indepedent/moderate voters won’t easily stomach a perceived strongly pro-life; anti-gay; anti-environment; extreme form of conservatism across the board (whether or not the perceptions are accurate that remains the perception of Cruz).

    As I’ve stated with Mitt Romney and others. Since Ted Cruz, before this election cycle (outside TX) compared to Hillary Clinton, did not have the universal name recognition across generational lines, (and there are some voters who still aren’t entirely familiar with him much less his candidacy) it will be very easy for Hillary to define Cruz to millions of moderate independent voters.

    And…what exactly can Ted Cruz offer non-Evangelical, socially liberal, moderate, independent voters? One tends to forget that they largely help to cancel out the Evangelical voters (who aren’t a major factor in any southern region state). So again, what exactly does Cruz offer these millions of voters?

    Answer: Nothing. With that choice before them, they’ll either vote for Hillary or stay home. Again and again: If Ted Cruz were all that, he would’ve attracted new voters to vote for him in the primaries. I don’t see any clear evidence that he is attracting millions of new voters, millions of voters registering as GOP, or even a huge massive amount of GOP based excitement enthusiasm which translates into actual votes for his candidacy. If you are intellectually honest as well as accurate, (based on primary results per state and how each candidate won the state) you will see that this has been the case.

    You are simply a bit borderline to believe that 25 million TV viewers last August (most of them GOP leaning voters by the way) tuned in to watch a GOP debate because the majority of them were Ted Cruz supporters. Which leads to the other point: After 12 debates and numerous town hall meetings to state his case, and help explain what his policies are and what plans he wants to implement as president, Cruz continues to lose to Trump. Perhaps the voters, after watching the debates, simply aren’t buying what he’s been trying to sell.

    Outside the Mt Region/Plains states, Ted Cruz finishes quite poorly. In the Northeast he finishes very badly. In the South he has finished third and sometimes second. But never has he won those states that are inhabited by Evangelicals. Irony, is that Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders has won about the same number of states as Cruz. Sanders’ supporters are the direct opposite of Cruz. They wouldn’t vote for an Evangelical if their lives depended upon it. Some of them, perhaps as high as 20%, may be induced to vote for a more moderate candidate as Trump vs Hillary. But they certainly would never vote for Cruz.

    Cruz simply doesn’t poll well with all segments of the country who aren’t rabidly Evangelical. Outside of that one main segment, he simply isn’t attracting much of anyone to vote for him. Those that would vote for Trump will simply stay home if he were to get the GOP nomination.

    Its understandable you don’t like Trump, though I suspect he is closer to your generation so its a bit puzzling as to why this is the case.

    Cruz has been in the Senate for about 6 yrs, almost one full term. He has had all this time to introduce new legislation regarding patriotic immigration reform. He also could have taken the lead to introduce federal legislation to build a wall on the southern border (as a TX Senator he would know quite well about the problems with the southern border). He has not done so, and that’s on him. Its very telling that AL Senator Jeff Sessions, who is an Evangelical but is also known for being very strong on immigration, trade issues, and other nationalistic issues has endorsed Trump. Wonder why? He certainly knows Ted Cruz in the Senate and would best know how reliable Cruz is and would be on the issue of immigration. Yet he chose not to endorse him.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/03/25/an-antiestablishment-candidate-the-real-ted-cruz-n2139172

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/02/29/why-sessions-did-not-endorse-ted-cruz-the-latter-favored-amnesty-n2126573

    As the GOP has controlled the Senate since ’13, Show us the legislation and bills that Cruz has introduced in the Senate regarding his desire to build a wall on the southern border. Show us the legislation that Cruz has introduced regarding a temporary halt on Muslim immigration. Show us the legislation that Cruz has sponsored on curtailing the total number of immigration (including legal immigration). Show us, so that we as voters can decide if Cruz is truly on the side of patriotic immigration.

    You can’t, because he has not done so and he has had nearly six years to introduce legislation that calls for building a wall to halt the massive influx of illegal aliens. If he had done so, he probably would have runaway with the nomination during the primary season. It is very, very telling that the one senator, Jeff Sessions, who is an Evangelical, who has been consistently on the side of stopping illegal immigration, who has been strongly vs. unfair trade policies that harm US’s interests and ship jobs overseas, is now backing Trump and is campaigning with him.

  174. @AP

    “I don’t have such data for the entire South,”

    I do. I use common sense
     
    "Common sense" isn't data. You provided no data.

    Here is a post with a link to data showing deaths from overdose by county in KY:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/primaries-open-thread-republican/#comment-1349751

    This can be matched with data from the primary. You will see, as I wrote, that "Trump carried every one of the top ten counties with the highest prescription drug overdose death rates in KY. Many of these were landslides – Trump beat Cruz 65% to 15% in Robinson county, for example.

    Cruz carried 5 of the 10 counties with no reported deaths from prescription drug overdose. Moreover his losses tended to be closer – he lost Barren county to Trump by 2%.
    -------------------------

    As I said, Cruz wins in traditional areas with intact wholesome societies.

    You can say that all you like, but the fact remains that there are fewer and fewer of these types of “traditional areas” remaining in 2016 than there were decades ago. But then, if Cruz really cared about curtailing run away illegal immigration, outsourcing jobs while insourcing H-1B foreigners to take away native born American workers jobs, perhaps there would be more of these traditional areas. People in these southern states are perhaps turning to drugs because their jobs have been outsourced by unfair trade policies. Steve recently referenced an article on the white death since around 2000, that it has been increasing. One reason for this is that the jobs are either drying up, have been outsourced, or have been taken away due to illegal immigration.

    Again: Cruz has had nearly six whole yrs to introduce legislation on curtailing illegal immigration, reducing legal immigration, and building a wall on the Southern border. He has not done so. These reasons are among the reasons why Senator Sessions refused to endorse him and is now campaigning for Donald Trump.

    Note to all commenters here: In all these exchanges, I have stated the basics of some of Trump’s officially stated policies, what he wants to accomplish, achieve in the White House as President, etc. while this person has not once, NOT ONCE, stated the various policies that Cruz wants to accomplish OR the legislation on immigration that he has introduced while a member of the Senate. Not once has he stated that Cruz’s such and such bill will build a wall, or that Cruz’s legislation will do this vs. unfair trade deals. Part of the overall picture. Trump discusses the issues while his rivals do not (and how can they, since they are beholden to the one percent global donorists).

    In larger part, this is why Trump is winning. Had Cruz introduced, taken the lead on these issues in the Senate, he could simply state in the debates “There you go again, Donald. Trying to steal and make your own the policies, legislation of which I’ve introduced in the Senate.” He could then hold up before the cameras “here’s a copy of my bill that I introduced. I want to build a wall on the TX border, and it will help stop illegal immigration etc etc. Here it is go to the website, folks, and read it for yourselves.” Show us the wall on the southern border that Cruz has sponsored. I want to see a copy of this proposed bill/legislation that Cruz sponsored, taken the lead on.

    He didn’t do that, because he’s never introduced legislation on the immigration issue, which is why Trump has made the issue of illegal immigration, the wall, etc. his own. No one else was gonna even discuss it before the Donald brought it up and took the lead on the issue.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.