The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Polls Underpredicted Trump by 2.6 Points
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Before the Iowa caucus kicked off the political year, Trump supporters figured that Trump would do better than his polls indicated because a lot of people probably would think it imprudent to publicly admit to a stranger that you are intending to do something so widely deplored. But then Trump underperformed in the semi-public Iowa caucuses and the conventional wisdom soon solidified that Trump does no better than his polls.

Audacious Epigone, however, points out that the conventional wisdom wound up being wrong: Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average (that’s about 6% or 7%). He outperformed the polls in 26 out of 36 states.

Over the last 15 states, Trump beat his polls in 14 of them, for an average of 5.4 points better than the polls predicted. Trump’s biggest over-performance came in the last primary, Indiana.

State RCPAvg Actual Better (worse)
Indiana 42.8 54.6 +11.8
Rhode Island 52.3 63.8 +11.5
Arkansas 23.0 32.8 +9.8
Arizona 38.0 47.1 +9.1
Pennsylvania 48.3 56.8 +8.5
New York 53.1 60.4 +7.3
Maryland 47.7 54.4 +6.7
Mississippi 41.0 47.3 +6.3
Delaware 55.0 60.8 +5.8
Alaska 28.0 33.5 +5.5
Alabama 38.0 43.4 +5.4
Missouri 36.0 40.8 +4.8
New Hampshire 31.2 35.3 +4.1
Massachusetts 45.3 49.3 +4.0
Connecticut 53.7 57.7 +4.0
Nevada 42.0 45.9 +3.9
Minnesota 18.0 21.3 +3.3
Utah 11.0 14.0 +3.0
Florida 43.0 45.8 +2.8
Illinois 36.0 38.8 +2.8
Georgia 36.2 38.8 +2.6
Kentucky 35.0 35.9 +0.9
Vermont 32.0 32.7 +0.7
South Carolina 31.8 32.5 +0.7
Wisconsin 34.5 35.1 +0.6
Ohio 35.4 35.7 +0.3
Michigan 37.3 36.5 (0.8)
North Carolina 41.3 40.2 (1.1)
Tennessee 40.0 38.9 (1.1)
Texas 28.2 (26.7) (1.5)
Idaho 30.0 28.1 (1.9)
Louisiana 43.4 41.4 (2.0)
Virginia 36.8 34.7 (2.1)
Iowa 28.6 24.3 (4.3)
Oklahoma 32.7 28.3 (4.4)
Kansas 35.0 23.3 (11.7)

So, 2.6 points or even 5.4 points probably aren’t enough to close the current gap with Hillary, but it suggests that the future is unwritten.

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    • Replies: @Kaz
    I hate these people.

    Mike Tysons rape conviction was obvious bullshit to anyone that isn't paid to tow the PC line.

    That aside Trump does tend to lie a lot. But he's firm on the most important issue and that is immigration.

    Cruz lied a lot too though, so I don't understand the worship from this guy..

    "Trump for financial fraud."

    Only a moron who doesn't understand business would say something like this. Trump has hundreds of business ventures, scorned investors are always going to litigate, that's a fact of life.

    ---

    The Republicans had a decent candidate, that was Mitt Romney, don't blame the public for not putting up with the religious nutbag Cruz.

    I don't see why he brings up the point about minorities/women, Republicans never do well with minorities/women in huge numbers anyways.

    Also the comments on that post are stupid as hell. People obsessed with abortion.

    , @Ed
    The GOP is struggling because some struggling blogger at a soon to be defunct new site is leaving? The GOP has had the most votes castes in its primary ever. Turnout is up across the board.

    The GOP will be fine.
    , @boogerbently
    No bias in THAT article !
    , @AnotherDad
    I skimmed it--what an annoying twerp.

    I swear "conservative" twerps like this are worse than their lefty counterparts. The young lefties are just the typical hotheads who think they know better than everyone at all of 30, and love the big state--and the chance to use it to mess with people. (A more or less accurate account of leftism.)

    Whereas this guys' moronic spew ... thinks he's a conservative and doesn't have any idea what conservative means. Just stupid and pathetic.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    I can't keep The Blaze and The Blade straight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/polls-underpredicted-trump-by-2-6-points/#comment-1408715
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. ‘…Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average…’

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    The only poll that counts is the one on November 8.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Trump has garnered more Republican voters than anyone else in the history of time, while Clinton has fewer voters now than she had in 2008. Furthermore, I'm not even sure Clinton will be her party's nominee. She's losing state after state and the email scandal has yet to be fully resolved. Look for a resurgence of the 'Draft Biden" movement once it becomes apparent that Hillary could actually lose to Donald Trump.

    Also, the news media are about to pivot in favor of Trump, beginning with Megyn Kelly's exclusive interview. They all want to ride the Trump Train.

    Those head-to-head national polls mean absolutely butt-crack nothing now, since they were all taken at a time when the Republican field was still open and thus a free playground for fantasy and projection. Now we have a nominee and we have a race. We have a national spotlight that is about to shine very brightly on the candidates and their doings. Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs.
    , @The Practical Conservative
    Actually, a recent national head to head did have Trump in the lead and another one had him tied (both Rasmussen). And he's polled ahead of Clinton in matchups before, though certainly not frequently.

    I don't think Trump is guaranteed to win, but he's not nearly so badly off in national polling as is commonly presented. I was surprised myself, but data is data....
    , @Das
    Negative partisanship will keep it fairly close, even if Trump runs a totally disastrous general election campaign.

    The Clintons drive Republicans hysterically insane. Many Republicans aren't too keen on Trump, but the thought of Hillary as president will bring them to the polls no matter what.

    But I think Trump will actually run an effective general election campaign. Trump has abandoned a lot of the toxic positioning that usually kills Republicans among working class whites in the Midwest. He needs to pivot further to the center now that he's won the primary and appeal to those voters. If he can flip Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he'll win.

    , @Erik Sieven
    the problem for Clinton are TV duels between her and Trump. First of all Trump has the much more likable personality, he is witty and kind of warm. That can not be said about Clinton.
    The Trump has done things I would have never thought of being possible in 2015/2016, saying all these un-PC things. Yet he withstand all the pressure and prevailed. So he won´t let get Clinton away with empty antiracist feminist slogans. Last but not least Sanders went very easy on Clinton, Trump won´t do that. He will talk about her term as head of the DOS. In those duels Clinton will not have the slightest chance. Rubio and Cruz have been much tougher opponents for Trump, Sanders would of course also do better.
    , @Anonymous
    In May 1980 Carter was beating Reagan by 8 points.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections
    , @anon
    It's fascinating to watch people who don't understand human nature try to figure out why Trump keeps getting stronger despite what people tell pollsters.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances...
     
    I pretty much agree with you, but here's a piece that gave me second thoughts. If the analysis is correct, Trump will win; Clinton lacks the judgment to avoid Trump's trap.

    "Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-walking-into-donald-trumps-trap/2016/05/04/1cbe2722-120a-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html
    , @Mr. Anon
    "(Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. "

    And polls never change. Not ever. That's why George Herbert Walker Bush was re-elected by a land-slide in 1992. His unassailable position in the polls in the summer of 1991 all but predicted his victory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Part of the frustration over Hillary Clinton not having been coronated already is that women would vastly rather not go through a drag down knock out affair to assume power. Why should they? Right now they do a pretty good job getting others to wield power for them. The women’s movement could literally expend their entire political capitol to elect her and for what? Equality? That is the last thing they want. It would be vastly better for the feminists if she could just ascend up onto a pedestal and radiate her glory but instead she has to muck around like the whoring lawyer that she is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prole
    Radiate what glory ? Hillary is an embarrassment to most feminists, riding the coattails of a man who constantly cheated on her, a known sexual predator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    The only poll that counts is the one on November 8.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Economic Sophisms
    He beat her in the Rasmussen poll, he tied her in another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Jon0815 says:

    Of course he outperformed his polls in raw percentage, because the polls included undecideds, some of whom ended up voting for him. What matters is how the point spread in the polls compared to the actual point spread.

    Trump beat his spread in Indiana by 6 points (RCP average had him winning by 11 points, and he won by 17), which is certainly impressive, but Cruz beat his spread in Wisconsin by 8 points. I don’t know which one did better on average.

    Regardless, even if Trump usually beat the spread by a few points with primary voters, that doesn’t mean he would do the same with general election voters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, it's worth pointing out that this overperformance is, to some extent, expected since undecided likely voters are excluded. That is somewhat offset by the votes for people no longer actively campaigning who aren't inquired about in polls but who still end up getting votes (Cruz lost to Ben Carson in one of New York's voting districts, for example) and for those who vote as "uncommitted".

    What is noteworthy, though, is that his overperformance gained considerable steam over time even as the number of undecideds decreased. What is clear regarding Trump is that the people who say they are going to vote for him do, in fact, end up voting for him, and then some.

    As for the margin of victory/defeat method, it presages the general even less since there were never any GOP contests between just two people. In Wisconsin, for example, the story wasn't that Trump fared poorly, it was the Kasich collapsed and almost all of his support went to Cruz.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Polls in the spring of an election year are unimportant.

    Vincente Fox has changed his tune on Trump:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/04/president-fox-apologizes-invites-trump-mexico/

    Haha. Everybody loves a winner. Or maybe everybody sees the value in sucking up to a winner.

    PS considering Hillary’s track record why would anyone running against her ever count themselves out? She’s always on the edge of losing. Hillary is deeply unpopular with women right now in May 2016. That’s a fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Fox was a right of center businessman who broke the 70 year monoply of the PRI on the Mexican presidency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    Trump has garnered more Republican voters than anyone else in the history of time, while Clinton has fewer voters now than she had in 2008. Furthermore, I’m not even sure Clinton will be her party’s nominee. She’s losing state after state and the email scandal has yet to be fully resolved. Look for a resurgence of the ‘Draft Biden” movement once it becomes apparent that Hillary could actually lose to Donald Trump.

    Also, the news media are about to pivot in favor of Trump, beginning with Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview. They all want to ride the Trump Train.

    Those head-to-head national polls mean absolutely butt-crack nothing now, since they were all taken at a time when the Republican field was still open and thus a free playground for fantasy and projection. Now we have a nominee and we have a race. We have a national spotlight that is about to shine very brightly on the candidates and their doings. Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs."

    And then will she go away? Sweet, sweet Jesus, will she ever go away?

    I think not. She must be put away. Crooked Hillary belongs in the Big House, not the White House.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. SPMoore8 says:

    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama’s swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Eugenikos

    Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.
     
    How recent is recent? 10 years? 20 years? If that's your definition of recent, I know for a fact that plenty of recent immigrants will vote for Trump. Let's not forget that not all immigrants come from Mexico.

    On a side note, considering that it takes years to get a green card even when one is a professional with a graduate degree in STEM, and then it takes five years with a green card to qualify to apply for citizenship, and then getting citizenship takes at least a year, one could easily be in this country for over a a decade before earning the citizenship and the right to vote. To me, that's a recent immigrant.
    , @anon

    Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.
     
    it's not so much about recent as whether they still have relatives they want to get on the lifeboat - the two overlap but not absolutely

    Most women will vote for Hillary.
     
    he'll shred her with bill
    , @G Pinfold
    I don't see why not. Trump is a man's man. Black men like that. I can imagine him being well respected outside of Ta' Nahisi circles.
    It's not like they deeply believe Hillary got their back.
    , @Andrew
    "My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him."

    Trump's wife is a recent immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, and 4 of his 5 children were born of an immigrant. He has a very compelling personal story to use to show he is not in any way prejudiced against immigrants per se, just illegals. And he has not even begun to use this story.

    "Most women will vote for Hillary."

    My gut is that Trump will start displaying and describing women he has employed in high positions for decades with equal or better pay and contrast that to Hillary, who cannot even pay women in her Senate office equally with her male employees even as she decries wage discrimination.

    Trump has already neutralized all the religious right social issue nonsense for the election, so the decision for or against him will be on economics, security, illegal immigration/border control, and personal trust. There won't be any campaign discussion this year of birth control and transgender bathroom access or denying white women who are raped by a black criminal an abortion.

    Most women may vote for Hillary unless this turns into a landslide, but these will primarily be blacks, other minorities, and single white women Trump was never going to win. On the other hand, he is going to push her into being incredibly alienating towards men, starting with #OffTheReservation.
    , @Expletive Deleted

    Any recent immigrant won’t
     
    is what NuLaba assumed in UK .
    Turns out the only people as keen as the fabled "neo-nazis" (who they?) to kick the ladder away/bar the door etc. are the more recent tides of ingrates and plunderers.
    You should hear what eg Sikhs or Jamaicans say about the "Poles" (anyone east of the Oder, from Tallinn to Plovdiv; apparently Europeans all look the same, to them). Never mind the Muz/Desi/Ghan whatever subcontinentals, seems to revolve around decapitation or slavery, but it's all a bit too screechy, spitty and mad to decipher. I've no idea what the Chinese say, and neither does anyone else.
    I can't tell you what the "Poles" say about them, or the sacred Refugees from Failure following hard on their heels in turn, because I'd be interned. SsssSSsssSSsssss .. as Spurs fans are used to hearing wherever they go.

    I fully expect UKIP to become an effnick-dominated outfit going forward, as their plan appears to be to shut off Wite migras (them "poles" from the EU) and haul in bucketload after bucketload of erstwhile Commonwealth/Empire dossers, which the EU currently makes awkward. Back to the '50s and '60s, in other words.
    But until Brit wages and conditions are "harmonised"* with say, Saigon, or Ougadougu, not one single business operator or any of their political catspaws will step away from the global, all-you-can-eat, serf labour and people-farming buffet.

    *lovely BruxoStrasbourgian technical term there. Used to be known as "reduced to paupers", in the good old days. Off to the workhouse/van Diemen's Land with 'em.
    , @HA
    >Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.

    I wouldn't bet on the recent-immigrant shopkeepers or cabdrivers in the #BLM heartland (in some cases, even if they happen to be Muslim). Eastern Europeans, be they Poles and Hungarians or be they Russians and Armenians, will also likely be rooting for Trump. Same goes for a significant number of Christians from places like Iraq or Syria or Nigeria.

    Moreover, from my limited perspective, no one loves trashy conspicuous displays of wealth like some of our recent immigrants. At the least, they're not going to be repulsed by the man.

    You put all those together and they're certainly not the majority of recent immigrants (and I'm only talking about legal ones), and I think you'll see the issue is far murkier than you make it out to be.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. OT to whomever admins the site (Unz?)

    There’s some weird error, possibly DB normalization in WordPress or a plugin where it will say 2 Comments to “Polls Underpredicted Trump by 2.6 Points”, but there will actually be four comments. That’s what I’m seeing now.

    Not a big deal, but it looks so sloppy…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Kaz says:
    @Anonymous
    The Republican Party just killed itself:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/goodbye-republican-party-and-good-riddance/

    I hate these people.

    Mike Tysons rape conviction was obvious bullshit to anyone that isn’t paid to tow the PC line.

    That aside Trump does tend to lie a lot. But he’s firm on the most important issue and that is immigration.

    Cruz lied a lot too though, so I don’t understand the worship from this guy..

    “Trump for financial fraud.”

    Only a moron who doesn’t understand business would say something like this. Trump has hundreds of business ventures, scorned investors are always going to litigate, that’s a fact of life.

    The Republicans had a decent candidate, that was Mitt Romney, don’t blame the public for not putting up with the religious nutbag Cruz.

    I don’t see why he brings up the point about minorities/women, Republicans never do well with minorities/women in huge numbers anyways.

    Also the comments on that post are stupid as hell. People obsessed with abortion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. If you only count recent surveys of likely voters (rather than registered voters) Clinton is only up an average of 4 points, so claims the Trump cannot win are unreasonable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    Actually, a recent national head to head did have Trump in the lead and another one had him tied (both Rasmussen). And he’s polled ahead of Clinton in matchups before, though certainly not frequently.

    I don’t think Trump is guaranteed to win, but he’s not nearly so badly off in national polling as is commonly presented. I was surprised myself, but data is data….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    , @Ed
    I want Trump to win but don't cite Rasmussen polls, they're crap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Does Trump’s nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn’t one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like “Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by ‘guns, God, and gays’ stuff,” would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about “conservative values.” It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "None of this was ever about “conservative values.” It was all just tribal, nativist rage"

    So The Democratic Party does not engage in tribal rage racial identity politics? Is The Democratic Party the color blind party?
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it. Hillary has just officially announced that her two signature issues for the GE are Gun Control and Immigration Reform. Basically the two issues that are ivory tower wonk based, whereas Trump has offered immigration as in: build a wall, and enforce existing laws vs illegal aliens as well as get a handle on unfair trade agreements, like NAFTA, which her husband signed
    into law.

    Hillary's nomination confirms every stereotype conservatives have said about the liberal Democrats that control their party for yrs, namely, they don't give a damn for the white working class and havent since the '70's. All they care about are the gays, environment, gun control, etc. which, except for the 2nd Amendment issue, doesn't register with ordinary voters.


    FACT: It has been noted repeatedly in the MSM that Trump has brought millions of new voters into the primaries to vote for him, to cross over and vote or ones who haven't voted in decades. Hillary has none of that. There's no cross over appeal for her, and millions of GOP voters aren't suddenly gonna switch and vote for her in November.

    If anyone is doing the "Guns, gays, etc" stuff this time round it's Hillary. Trump's offering concrete issues that voters care about. Even the issue of Immigration, WHO has made that his signature issue for over the last yr? Not Hillary. WHO has been driving the election for nearly a year? It certainly hasn't been Jeb!

    Something to consider.

    , @Das
    No. Republican voters voted for someone who had ideas about immigration, trade, and economics that they agreed with.

    If they had turned out to vote for Cruz because of his promises to stop transgenders from using public toilets, that would be evidence that Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests over dumb wedge issues.
    , @Bill
    It's hard to imagine how you could get it more backwards. Each rube who voted for Ted Cruz confirms every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base. Muh principles! Muh Konstitution! How pathetically stupid.

    It was all just tribal, nativist rage.
     
    Yeah, voting the actual interests of your country, your countrymen, and your kin is "tribal, nativist rage." You pathetic cuck.
    , @AnotherDad

    None of this was ever about “conservative values.” It was all just tribal, nativist rage.
     
    Frisky tusk, it's unfortunate that you are not an actual conservative. And that someone apparently has fed you some line of b.s. about what "conservative" means. (For example, it does not mean "he who wants the lowest marginal tax rates.")

    A conservative is someone who cherishes his people, his culture, his nation, his civilization and wishes to preserve them, pass them on down through the generations.

    He has the wisdom to appreciate that he's a link in a chain and part of something much bigger than himself. He realizes that the traditions and values of his people, worked out organically over generations have deep embedded evolutionary "wisdom" of their own and shouldn't just be tossed out willy-nilly by the "reformers" and "progressives" who think they can engineer society, but pretty much without exception just screw it up. At heart a conservative is someone who loves his people, culture, nation and civilization and wishes to preserve them.

    What you belittle as "nativist rage" could be more aptly called "intense passion for preserving one's nation" ... which is what actual "conservatives"--"conserve" is a hint--actually feel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Jefferson says:

    I hope The Republican Party of Lindsey Graham and George Will does dies off forever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Jefferson says:
    @Anonymous
    Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn't one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about "conservative values." It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    “None of this was ever about “conservative values.” It was all just tribal, nativist rage”

    So The Democratic Party does not engage in tribal rage racial identity politics? Is The Democratic Party the color blind party?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The people who are so confidently predicting a Trump loss in November are largely the same people who assured us that Trump was a joke, that he’d fade away before the end of 2015, and that surely he’s gone too far this time and the voters will punish him.

    At this rate, I expect Hillary to get BTFO in a 40 state landslide for Trump in November.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Here is my favorite Trump prediction from these morons:
    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/674200932054355968
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Jefferson says:

    A bunch of Swedish Cucks. The irony that the only Swede who has the balls to fight back against Somali Muslim thuggery is the physically handicap Swede in the wheelchair, but the able bodied Swedes are a disgrace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @The Practical Conservative
    Actually, a recent national head to head did have Trump in the lead and another one had him tied (both Rasmussen). And he's polled ahead of Clinton in matchups before, though certainly not frequently.

    I don't think Trump is guaranteed to win, but he's not nearly so badly off in national polling as is commonly presented. I was surprised myself, but data is data....

    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary’s campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney’s 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that’s the advice I’d give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I’m encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won’t count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they’re all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She’s not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    “Whatever it takes”—Chuck Noll

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew
    "which brings the total to 271, which means he wins."

    Republicans need to get away from the "path to 270" rubbish. Narrowly trying to win an election generally means you are going to lose. The Democrats tried that in 2000 and 2004 and let the Republicans barely eke by, but otherwise they went for the jugular.

    We should instead aim for 350+ like Obama did, knowing that if we lose a few, which is inevitable, we will still win. I honestly think there is a chance for a 450+ wipeout, especially if Trump can pull off the NY upset.

    For Trump going for 350, that means competing for most of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (we can let MA, RI, and MD, and DC slide), the industrial midwest in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa, and sandy swing states Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. This also has the advantage for Trump of making his travel itineraries simple and letting him sleep at one of his homes most nights.

    WI, MN, CO, VA, and OR will be pulled along by external events nationally rather than overt campaigning - they are not Trump country.

    Consider for a moment that winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida early is an opportunity to call the race at 11p EST and start partying, something Republicans haven't gotten to do since 1988! There is a lot of pent up psychological frustration to win big that is going to come into play.
    , @Ed
    Michigan won't flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there's a shot he can flip it.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    ...if UT does flip cause they’re all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV...
     
    I don't care what the polls say in May; Hillary's not carrying Utah. My guess is, Trump carries all eight of the Rocky Mountain states (but New Mexico may be tricky).
    , @AnotherDad
    Yojimbo, you're overthinking the state thing. (And your lose Utah thing is just nuts.)

    If Trump doesn't blow himself up and is competitive in the national popular vote, then the state thing is pretty straightforward:

    -- In that scenario, there's really no Romney state Trump would not carry -- 2o6 electoral votes.
    -- He needs to win back a bunch of the Bush II states.
    -- Florida and Ohio should be straightforward--and if he can't win them then he wasn't competitive nationally and ... he's dead. They comprise 47 of the 64 he needs.
    -- Bush also carried Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire in 2000, but the 2010 redistricting means all that is not necessary--Trump just needs 17 more electoral votes.
    -- If Trump can win Virginia (13)
    -- then anything (CO, NV, IA, NH) works.
    -- If Trump can't take back Virginia because it's too "establishment"
    -- then Trump needs Colorado (8) and two of three of IA (6), NV(6), NH (4)
    -- If Trump can't take back Virginia because it's too "establishment" *and* can't win Colorado or Nevada because they are too "Hispanic"--i.e. Mexican, then he must break through in a big "Midwestern" (Big 10) industrial state"--Pennsylvania is the obvious target.

    Trump wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and he's President Trump.

    But this state by state stuff really isn't the issue.

    Run a strong *national* campaign:
    -- Explain why his nationalist issues provide a better future for middle and working class Americans ... without being a big a*hole.
    -- Attack Hillary's competence and corruption without being a big a*hole.
    -- Attack Hillary's useless, Washington\Wall-Street friendly same old shit.
    -- Be a confident manly man ... without being petty ... ergo looking like a winner, a president.
    ... and the national vote totals will come and the electoral college thing will take care of itself.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.
     
    Or Reagan, who forfeited Michigan twice and thus the White House. Didn't he know that auto company bailouts are in the Constitution, right after the Second Amendment?

    And don't forget Ted Cruz throwing away Iowa by questioning ethanol. I mean, that's in the Bible-- gold, frankincense and E-85.

    Nobody who questions subsidies or bailouts ever gets elected. That's why Bernie dropped out weeks ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.

    How recent is recent? 10 years? 20 years? If that’s your definition of recent, I know for a fact that plenty of recent immigrants will vote for Trump. Let’s not forget that not all immigrants come from Mexico.

    On a side note, considering that it takes years to get a green card even when one is a professional with a graduate degree in STEM, and then it takes five years with a green card to qualify to apply for citizenship, and then getting citizenship takes at least a year, one could easily be in this country for over a a decade before earning the citizenship and the right to vote. To me, that’s a recent immigrant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Truth says:

    Gents:

    I think one of the most comical developments on this site is that after years of ridicule, sneering condescension, and holier than though predictions of the future from Steve, and most of the rest of you, you guys are getting the presidential candidate you always wanted, and deserved:

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Camacho was very civic minded and good at delegation.
    , @Bill
    Nah. The real irony is that blacks are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of The Wall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Anonymous
    Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn't one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about "conservative values." It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    Hold it, hold it. Hillary has just officially announced that her two signature issues for the GE are Gun Control and Immigration Reform. Basically the two issues that are ivory tower wonk based, whereas Trump has offered immigration as in: build a wall, and enforce existing laws vs illegal aliens as well as get a handle on unfair trade agreements, like NAFTA, which her husband signed
    into law.

    Hillary’s nomination confirms every stereotype conservatives have said about the liberal Democrats that control their party for yrs, namely, they don’t give a damn for the white working class and havent since the ’70′s. All they care about are the gays, environment, gun control, etc. which, except for the 2nd Amendment issue, doesn’t register with ordinary voters.

    FACT: It has been noted repeatedly in the MSM that Trump has brought millions of new voters into the primaries to vote for him, to cross over and vote or ones who haven’t voted in decades. Hillary has none of that. There’s no cross over appeal for her, and millions of GOP voters aren’t suddenly gonna switch and vote for her in November.

    If anyone is doing the “Guns, gays, etc” stuff this time round it’s Hillary. Trump’s offering concrete issues that voters care about. Even the issue of Immigration, WHO has made that his signature issue for over the last yr? Not Hillary. WHO has been driving the election for nearly a year? It certainly hasn’t been Jeb!

    Something to consider.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    The primary for the Democrats is more than just seeing who the last candidate standing is. That person also has to have solidified the backing of the Democratic holy troika; Blacks, Latinos, and Women. Their coalition is like a three legged stool. All it takes is for one to be missing. What is even worse, they have to always be looking over their shoulder regarding turnout. This is why the Democratic Primary never ceases. It is not a contest of ideas as much as a one to see who can get the highest turnout based on identity politics.
    , @Hibernian
    I think she's got some cross over appeal for country club Republicans. The more liberal of them have been going Democratic since the '70s. Trump may accelerate that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Truth says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Hey, that reminds me, where'd Cruz go? Come back into the ring, Ted! Give him a big hand. Here, take a seat and we'll get going in just a moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. tbraton says:

    To give a more complete picture, shouldn’t there be a comparable study showing how Hillary performed vis-à-vis the preprimary polls? For example, in recently concluded Indiana, RCP still shows Hillary polling at 50% and Bernie at 43%, whereas the final results were Bernie at 52.75% and Hillary at 47.25%. Vote totals were 629,000 for the Democrats and 1.1 million for the Republicans, so it looks like Indiana can be counted safely in Trump’s corner, just as it has been safely Republican since 1940 except for 1964 and 2008.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Ed says:
    @Anonymous
    The Republican Party just killed itself:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/goodbye-republican-party-and-good-riddance/

    The GOP is struggling because some struggling blogger at a soon to be defunct new site is leaving? The GOP has had the most votes castes in its primary ever. Turnout is up across the board.

    The GOP will be fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Ed says:
    @The Practical Conservative
    Actually, a recent national head to head did have Trump in the lead and another one had him tied (both Rasmussen). And he's polled ahead of Clinton in matchups before, though certainly not frequently.

    I don't think Trump is guaranteed to win, but he's not nearly so badly off in national polling as is commonly presented. I was surprised myself, but data is data....

    I want Trump to win but don’t cite Rasmussen polls, they’re crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Eh, they're an average pollster. I mentioned them because the two recent polls favorable to Trump were from them. The previous polls where he was ahead were not from that pollster.

    It's too soon to say much of anything until people have had a few weeks to settle in to the reality of Trump as nominee while Hillary continues to grind it out against Sanders.
    , @Fredrik
    I don't know why you guys worry so much about polls that don't include a reliable breakdown by state. Only a poll of the swing states is what really matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Ed
    I want Trump to win but don't cite Rasmussen polls, they're crap.

    Eh, they’re an average pollster. I mentioned them because the two recent polls favorable to Trump were from them. The previous polls where he was ahead were not from that pollster.

    It’s too soon to say much of anything until people have had a few weeks to settle in to the reality of Trump as nominee while Hillary continues to grind it out against Sanders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Fredrik says:
    @Ed
    I want Trump to win but don't cite Rasmussen polls, they're crap.

    I don’t know why you guys worry so much about polls that don’t include a reliable breakdown by state. Only a poll of the swing states is what really matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Truth
    Gents:

    I think one of the most comical developments on this site is that after years of ridicule, sneering condescension, and holier than though predictions of the future from Steve, and most of the rest of you, you guys are getting the presidential candidate you always wanted, and deserved:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwgHjfagBo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DteLV6mts

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzwHgeg5b2E

    Camacho was very civic minded and good at delegation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Steve S said:

    So, 2.6 points or even 5.4 points probably aren’t enough to close the current gap with Hillary, but it suggests that the future is unwritten.

    The nomination process will have asymmetrical effects on both party’s candidates, benefitting Trump more than Clinton. There is more up-side for Trump and more down-side for Clinton in the campaign for Presidency.

    Clinton is already a “made guy” in political terms. So she will not gain much political capital from accepting what is, in any case, a political inheritance from her husband. But she will lose political capital as voters tire of her flat political style and somewhat tainted record.

    Trump, by contrast has a lot of political capital to gain from the nomination process. He is s political novice who has emerged from the ruck to win the top prize. The imprimatur of the party will confer democratic legitimacy on his candidacy. Also, Trump had already endured an orgy of mud-slinging and shrugged it off. People are still interested in what he has to say, going by his ratings.

    So yeah, there is still some mileage in this horse race. And time for Trumps luck to let him take the pot.

    Although I’ve got $100 on Hilary at 2.5 as I think the US has passed the tipping point of political demography.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Das says:
    @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    Negative partisanship will keep it fairly close, even if Trump runs a totally disastrous general election campaign.

    The Clintons drive Republicans hysterically insane. Many Republicans aren’t too keen on Trump, but the thought of Hillary as president will bring them to the polls no matter what.

    But I think Trump will actually run an effective general election campaign. Trump has abandoned a lot of the toxic positioning that usually kills Republicans among working class whites in the Midwest. He needs to pivot further to the center now that he’s won the primary and appeal to those voters. If he can flip Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he’ll win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    the problem for Clinton are TV duels between her and Trump. First of all Trump has the much more likable personality, he is witty and kind of warm. That can not be said about Clinton.
    The Trump has done things I would have never thought of being possible in 2015/2016, saying all these un-PC things. Yet he withstand all the pressure and prevailed. So he won´t let get Clinton away with empty antiracist feminist slogans. Last but not least Sanders went very easy on Clinton, Trump won´t do that. He will talk about her term as head of the DOS. In those duels Clinton will not have the slightest chance. Rubio and Cruz have been much tougher opponents for Trump, Sanders would of course also do better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Jefferson says:

    This song dedicated to Donald Trump samples it’s beat from a 1984 Van Halen song.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Van Halen members' likelihood of voting for Trump:

    Sammy Hagar: 90%
    Alex Van Halen: 75%
    David Lee Roth: 70%
    Eddie Van Halen: 60%

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Das says:
    @Anonymous
    Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn't one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about "conservative values." It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    No. Republican voters voted for someone who had ideas about immigration, trade, and economics that they agreed with.

    If they had turned out to vote for Cruz because of his promises to stop transgenders from using public toilets, that would be evidence that Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests over dumb wedge issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Steve S said:

    To update James Carville’s good advice to Bill Clinton in 1992: “It’s the immigration, stupid.”

    Actually James Carvilles “it’s the economy, stupid”, is always sage advice for politicians. And the economy is domewhat negative for the DEMs.
    Ray Fairs econometric model of politics has consistently predicted a REP victory based on a weak economy and DEM fatigue amongst non-partisan voters. The economic projections for 2016 continue to deteriorate:

    April 28, 2016, comment: The forecast for G is now lower (0.87 versus 1.97 for the previous forecast), and so the predicted vote share for the Democrats is lower (45.0 for VP versus 45.7 for the previous forecast). The main message has not changed, however, and so there is nothing new to add to the previous comments below. The economy in terms of the growth rate of GDP is clearly not a plus for the Democrats in 2016. This could, of course, be trumped by other factors.

    I don’t think Fairs model is rich enough to capture the various “supply side” factors that influence voter choice. I work on a Five P model of political suppliers:
    1. Pecuniary (“the economy, stupid”)
    2. Periodicity (“what comes up…”)
    3. Personality (“show business for ugly”)
    4. Policy (“median voter convergence”
    5. Party (“division is death”)

    By this heuristic Trump is ahead on Pecuniary & Periodicity. But he is behind on Personality, Policy & Party.

    He can make up some ground on Personality by aping the Presidential style. He can also make up ground on Policy by giving educated voters something smart to chew on, such as a Climate Change policy. What he really needs is a unified party to get behind him in November and work to get out the vote especially moderate REPs.

    If he can do all that then he could win. But the REPs are running against a ticking demographic clock which measures the gradual erosion of their political demand side ie Caucasian race, Christian religion, Constitutional rex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jack is the world champion of alliteration.
    , @Jack Hanson
    First you misread what Steve said, then you pretended Trump hasn't given any policy.

    The nail in the coffin that told me you were an unserious fool is when you said "climate change" and gave it proper noun status.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Lot says:
    @Anonymous
    Polls in the spring of an election year are unimportant.

    Vincente Fox has changed his tune on Trump:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/04/president-fox-apologizes-invites-trump-mexico/

    Haha. Everybody loves a winner. Or maybe everybody sees the value in sucking up to a winner.

    PS considering Hillary's track record why would anyone running against her ever count themselves out? She's always on the edge of losing. Hillary is deeply unpopular with women right now in May 2016. That's a fact.

    Fox was a right of center businessman who broke the 70 year monoply of the PRI on the Mexican presidency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Fox was a right of center businessman who broke the 70 year monoply of the PRI on the Mexican presidency.
     
    Right of the Mexican center, whatever that is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    oh man what happened in October 1980

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

    sh*t, sounds like having the ex-CIA head honcho on your ticket might help in a situation like this

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life's a roller coaster!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    It’s fascinating to watch people who don’t understand human nature try to figure out why Trump keeps getting stronger despite what people tell pollsters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.

    it’s not so much about recent as whether they still have relatives they want to get on the lifeboat – the two overlap but not absolutely

    Most women will vote for Hillary.

    he’ll shred her with bill

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. G Pinfold says:
    @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    I don’t see why not. Trump is a man’s man. Black men like that. I can imagine him being well respected outside of Ta’ Nahisi circles.
    It’s not like they deeply believe Hillary got their back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Jack Strocchi
    Steve S said:

    To update James Carville’s good advice to Bill Clinton in 1992: “It’s the immigration, stupid.”
     
    Actually James Carvilles "it's the economy, stupid", is always sage advice for politicians. And the economy is domewhat negative for the DEMs.
    Ray Fairs econometric model of politics has consistently predicted a REP victory based on a weak economy and DEM fatigue amongst non-partisan voters. The economic projections for 2016 continue to deteriorate:

    April 28, 2016, comment: The forecast for G is now lower (0.87 versus 1.97 for the previous forecast), and so the predicted vote share for the Democrats is lower (45.0 for VP versus 45.7 for the previous forecast). The main message has not changed, however, and so there is nothing new to add to the previous comments below. The economy in terms of the growth rate of GDP is clearly not a plus for the Democrats in 2016. This could, of course, be trumped by other factors.
     
    I don't think Fairs model is rich enough to capture the various "supply side" factors that influence voter choice. I work on a Five P model of political suppliers:
    1. Pecuniary ("the economy, stupid")
    2. Periodicity ("what comes up...")
    3. Personality ("show business for ugly")
    4. Policy ("median voter convergence"
    5. Party ("division is death")

    By this heuristic Trump is ahead on Pecuniary & Periodicity. But he is behind on Personality, Policy & Party.

    He can make up some ground on Personality by aping the Presidential style. He can also make up ground on Policy by giving educated voters something smart to chew on, such as a Climate Change policy. What he really needs is a unified party to get behind him in November and work to get out the vote especially moderate REPs.

    If he can do all that then he could win. But the REPs are running against a ticking demographic clock which measures the gradual erosion of their political demand side ie Caucasian race, Christian religion, Constitutional rex.

    Jack is the world champion of alliteration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Jefferson
    This song dedicated to Donald Trump samples it's beat from a 1984 Van Halen song.
    https://youtu.be/maolFiUxV2c

    Van Halen members’ likelihood of voting for Trump:

    Sammy Hagar: 90%
    Alex Van Halen: 75%
    David Lee Roth: 70%
    Eddie Van Halen: 60%

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    Michael Anthony (Sobolewski) 95%
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. jim jones says:

    I have just collected the winnings from my bet that Trump would be the Nominee. If I had listened to Nate Silver and his gang I would have won precisely nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Steve Sailer
    Van Halen members' likelihood of voting for Trump:

    Sammy Hagar: 90%
    Alex Van Halen: 75%
    David Lee Roth: 70%
    Eddie Van Halen: 60%

    Michael Anthony (Sobolewski) 95%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. David says:

    Maybe Trump tends to have more support on the day of the election than the time of the poll.

    It might not be bias in the poll results, it might be that Trump’s support is a rapidly accelerating target. The more recent the primary, the more Trump’s support is underestimated by the poll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Anonymous
    In May 1980 Carter was beating Reagan by 8 points.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections

    oh man what happened in October 1980

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

    sh*t, sounds like having the ex-CIA head honcho on your ticket might help in a situation like this

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life’s a roller coaster!

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    But consider what would happen if the Muslims engage in further terrorism either here or in Europe, or if there's a prominent case of an illegal immigrant committing violence on a particularly sympathetic American citizen.

    Such an event, or events, aren't even unlikely across the full length of the campaign season, given their frequency.

    What's Hillary's answer going to be? We haven't loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life’s a roller coaster!
     
    The Bushes are Hinckley descendants, but Reagan named his son Ronald Prescott.

    So tell me, which is the coincidence and which is the conspiracy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. The RCP figures are interesting, but has anyone looked at the performance of the individual polling organisations in the primaries? Alternatively, their performance in previous presidential elections?

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record – or a bad record, for that matter – so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record – or a bad record, for that matter – so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).
     
    This is one thing 538 does well. Here is their take:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
    In particular note the Rasmussen R+2.3 mean bias which is highly relevant for interpreting the recent Trump over Hillary polls.

    P.S. I might look like a 538 basher in some of my recent comments, but I actually have a good deal of respect for their methodology. I'm just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses (due to susceptibility to bias). I'm also angry that Nate Silver does not seem to have learned anything from his Trump mistakes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. countenance says: • Website

    There was never much polling out of Missouri and no polling before primary day. The RCP averages for Missouri came from late 2015 polls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Ft. Hays university (in Kansas) conducted a weeklong poll in early March. It was the only one conducted less than two weeks out from the actual primary. Consequently it was the RCP average I used.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. A NYT reader explains Trump:

    …an overt, unapologetic bigot has been chosen by millions of Americans. …so why would so many voters choose to swallow this poison pill?

    For the same reason a young black man seeks to use a gun to rectify a perceived wrong: because the establishment no longer works for their benefit.

    From the comments to

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2016/05/05/opinion/black-men-violence-and-fierce-urgency.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Because, when you really stop and think about it, ghetto blacks and middle class white guys are basically the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it. Hillary has just officially announced that her two signature issues for the GE are Gun Control and Immigration Reform. Basically the two issues that are ivory tower wonk based, whereas Trump has offered immigration as in: build a wall, and enforce existing laws vs illegal aliens as well as get a handle on unfair trade agreements, like NAFTA, which her husband signed
    into law.

    Hillary's nomination confirms every stereotype conservatives have said about the liberal Democrats that control their party for yrs, namely, they don't give a damn for the white working class and havent since the '70's. All they care about are the gays, environment, gun control, etc. which, except for the 2nd Amendment issue, doesn't register with ordinary voters.


    FACT: It has been noted repeatedly in the MSM that Trump has brought millions of new voters into the primaries to vote for him, to cross over and vote or ones who haven't voted in decades. Hillary has none of that. There's no cross over appeal for her, and millions of GOP voters aren't suddenly gonna switch and vote for her in November.

    If anyone is doing the "Guns, gays, etc" stuff this time round it's Hillary. Trump's offering concrete issues that voters care about. Even the issue of Immigration, WHO has made that his signature issue for over the last yr? Not Hillary. WHO has been driving the election for nearly a year? It certainly hasn't been Jeb!

    Something to consider.

    The primary for the Democrats is more than just seeing who the last candidate standing is. That person also has to have solidified the backing of the Democratic holy troika; Blacks, Latinos, and Women. Their coalition is like a three legged stool. All it takes is for one to be missing. What is even worse, they have to always be looking over their shoulder regarding turnout. This is why the Democratic Primary never ceases. It is not a contest of ideas as much as a one to see who can get the highest turnout based on identity politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You do know that there are women who are not extremely pro-gun control, right? You do know that there are groups like the "2nd Amendment Sisters", and other groups of women who proudly carry guns? In fact, over the last decade women have registered for more gun permits than at any time in history so if the NRA and other groups can exploit this fact among women, it's gonna take another chunk out of the Democratic coalition.

    Also as to your point about voter turnout in primaries, Trump has been setting records for registering more voters in GOP history and GOP turnout in all the primaries so far as exceeded Democratic turnout over all by almost 2 to 1, so yeah, its very much possible that the Democrats are getting their knickers in a twist over the real possibility that they could blow it in November. And now their candidate just made a major issue of her campaign, gun control.

    Thanks Hillary, for helping Trump solidify the South so he doesn't have to overspend there and can now focus on PA; MI; and other battleground states. Keep gaffing up like that and giving moderates and independents (who aren't particularly strong on gun control per se) a reason to give Trump a second and more serious look.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @DCThrowback
    oh man what happened in October 1980

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

    sh*t, sounds like having the ex-CIA head honcho on your ticket might help in a situation like this

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life's a roller coaster!

    But consider what would happen if the Muslims engage in further terrorism either here or in Europe, or if there’s a prominent case of an illegal immigrant committing violence on a particularly sympathetic American citizen.

    Such an event, or events, aren’t even unlikely across the full length of the campaign season, given their frequency.

    What’s Hillary’s answer going to be? We haven’t loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr Curious
    "What's Hillary's answer going to be? We haven't loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?"

    Yes. (((MSM))) too.

    Merkel.
    , @prusmc
    There will be no muslim terror outbreak in the US. Valarie Jarret has passed the word to the centers of influence. Same with BLM. A long hot summer could awaken slumbering white citizens. They will never actively resist but they might decide to vote or even vote contrary to the AFL-CIO instructions. That is among that small per cent of private sector union members. The public sector employees would even more strongly support HRC because unrest means more government programs, funding and employment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Svigor says:

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand…)

    No reason not to be optimistic. Hillary’s weak, and the polls you refer to would only be a big deal if the election were being held tomorrow. The polls in six months will be what matter*.

    P.S., Rasmussen head-to-head poll this week had Trump in the lead (by three, IIRC).

    *And even then, head-to-head national polls aren’t especially relevant. They count a lot of votes that don’t matter, like, say, Trump voters in Hawaii, and Hillary voters in South Carolina. Head-to-head polls from states in play would be far more relevant.

    Equality? That is the last thing they want.

    Too true. Equality would be a step down for women, at the moment.

    Does Trump’s nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base?

    Let’s see:

    Bible-thumping
    Socially conservative fanatics
    wholly owned by the donor class

    What else u got?

    It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    Nobody’s more afraid of being hit with a flamethrower than the guy who operates one. Of course he doesn’t want the enemy to have them.

    Gents:

    I think one of the most comical developments on this site is that after years of ridicule, sneering condescension, and holier than though predictions of the future from Steve, and most of the rest of you, you guys are getting the presidential candidate you always wanted, and deserved:

    I find it amusing how much you rely on video links to communicate. I have yet to view a single one of them. In fact, I have had a widget that blocks embedded video installed for years.

    Eh, they’re an average pollster.

    They consistently over-predicted for Romney in ’12.

    ruck
    Noun

    1 a crowd especially of ordinary or undistinguished persons or things; “his brilliance raised him above the ruck”; “the children resembled a fairy herd” [syn: herd]

    Did not know that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Andrew says:
    @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    “My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.”

    Trump’s wife is a recent immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, and 4 of his 5 children were born of an immigrant. He has a very compelling personal story to use to show he is not in any way prejudiced against immigrants per se, just illegals. And he has not even begun to use this story.

    “Most women will vote for Hillary.”

    My gut is that Trump will start displaying and describing women he has employed in high positions for decades with equal or better pay and contrast that to Hillary, who cannot even pay women in her Senate office equally with her male employees even as she decries wage discrimination.

    Trump has already neutralized all the religious right social issue nonsense for the election, so the decision for or against him will be on economics, security, illegal immigration/border control, and personal trust. There won’t be any campaign discussion this year of birth control and transgender bathroom access or denying white women who are raped by a black criminal an abortion.

    Most women may vote for Hillary unless this turns into a landslide, but these will primarily be blacks, other minorities, and single white women Trump was never going to win. On the other hand, he is going to push her into being incredibly alienating towards men, starting with #OffTheReservation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, remember some recent polls that show that like about 72% of white men are not going to vote for Hillary so if anyone has a major gender gap it's her. And now that Hillary has made gun control a signature issue for her campaign she's almost basically writing off a major section of the total white male vote, which is crazy but entirely predictable given her volatile personality. Bill never made that kind of mistake while campaigning. Basically Hillary isn't offering men (mainly white men) a thing, much less a strong compelling reason to vote for her and for the most part they won't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Andrew says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    “which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.”

    Republicans need to get away from the “path to 270″ rubbish. Narrowly trying to win an election generally means you are going to lose. The Democrats tried that in 2000 and 2004 and let the Republicans barely eke by, but otherwise they went for the jugular.

    We should instead aim for 350+ like Obama did, knowing that if we lose a few, which is inevitable, we will still win. I honestly think there is a chance for a 450+ wipeout, especially if Trump can pull off the NY upset.

    For Trump going for 350, that means competing for most of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (we can let MA, RI, and MD, and DC slide), the industrial midwest in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa, and sandy swing states Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. This also has the advantage for Trump of making his travel itineraries simple and letting him sleep at one of his homes most nights.

    WI, MN, CO, VA, and OR will be pulled along by external events nationally rather than overt campaigning – they are not Trump country.

    Consider for a moment that winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida early is an opportunity to call the race at 11p EST and start partying, something Republicans haven’t gotten to do since 1988! There is a lot of pent up psychological frustration to win big that is going to come into play.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I didn't say NJ, I said MI which has 16 electoral votes to NJ's 10. As a realist, I have to go for 270 and save the 350+ for 2020, his reelection campaign.

    WI; MN; OR have not gone GOP for over thirty yrs and I see no direct evidence that it will this time. Trump lost both WI and MN so there clearly aren't that many whites in those states that are pro-Trump. Simply isn't gonna happen. In fact, the Plains states areas have usually gone Democratic in the GE and there's no real proof that Trump is gonna carry them either. He can' waste time going for where the ducks aren't. FL; PA; and MI are the keys. He wins those, he's at 271 and he wins. First he has to win. Doesn't matter how its done.

    Now, if Bernie decides to run third party, THEN you have a strong point and Trump would no doubt carry many states that otherwise he wouldn't.

    I mean, sure we'd all like to see Trump win CA and ballgame's over, Trump wins.

    Notice what you just said. "Swing states" FL; NV; and NM. Its a shame that these states are swing states when for decades they were fairly reliable GOP wins. This is the direct result of immigration policies. Same thing with VA. That was a solid GOP state for nearly fifty yrs. I have to assume that a large portion of why the GOP lost it was due to Obama. Now Trump did win VA but it was close. Perhaps he can do better there now that he's the nominee.

    Also, this is an example where carrying 15% of the black vote could aid Trump. If he can get that 15% in a state like VA, coupled with most of the Appalachian down market rural whites in the state, and he wins VA and the 13 electoral votes that go with it.

    OH could go either way. Trump probably would've won OH if it hadn't been for Kasich. It will largely depend on whether he can get the southern portion of the state to turn out to vote for him. Who knows.

    I gave a reasonable path to 270 because CA and other states with tons of electoral votes aren't in play. If Trump actually carried NY that would indeed be awesome, but come on. Have to be realistic.

    No, FL; PA; and MI. That's a clear path to 270 and a very good one. Any additional states he carries is icing on the cake (or on the wall to be more accurate).

    Whatever it takes.
    , @prole
    Excellent idea..Trump should try to win New York, New Jersey and PA. These people are comfortable with Trump's brashness and he will do much better than most expect with Black voters in these states. They know Trump well , thus it will be difficult for Hillary to tar him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Pericles says:
    @Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

    Hey, that reminds me, where’d Cruz go? Come back into the ring, Ted! Give him a big hand. Here, take a seat and we’ll get going in just a moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Jack Strocchi
    Steve S said:

    To update James Carville’s good advice to Bill Clinton in 1992: “It’s the immigration, stupid.”
     
    Actually James Carvilles "it's the economy, stupid", is always sage advice for politicians. And the economy is domewhat negative for the DEMs.
    Ray Fairs econometric model of politics has consistently predicted a REP victory based on a weak economy and DEM fatigue amongst non-partisan voters. The economic projections for 2016 continue to deteriorate:

    April 28, 2016, comment: The forecast for G is now lower (0.87 versus 1.97 for the previous forecast), and so the predicted vote share for the Democrats is lower (45.0 for VP versus 45.7 for the previous forecast). The main message has not changed, however, and so there is nothing new to add to the previous comments below. The economy in terms of the growth rate of GDP is clearly not a plus for the Democrats in 2016. This could, of course, be trumped by other factors.
     
    I don't think Fairs model is rich enough to capture the various "supply side" factors that influence voter choice. I work on a Five P model of political suppliers:
    1. Pecuniary ("the economy, stupid")
    2. Periodicity ("what comes up...")
    3. Personality ("show business for ugly")
    4. Policy ("median voter convergence"
    5. Party ("division is death")

    By this heuristic Trump is ahead on Pecuniary & Periodicity. But he is behind on Personality, Policy & Party.

    He can make up some ground on Personality by aping the Presidential style. He can also make up ground on Policy by giving educated voters something smart to chew on, such as a Climate Change policy. What he really needs is a unified party to get behind him in November and work to get out the vote especially moderate REPs.

    If he can do all that then he could win. But the REPs are running against a ticking demographic clock which measures the gradual erosion of their political demand side ie Caucasian race, Christian religion, Constitutional rex.

    First you misread what Steve said, then you pretended Trump hasn’t given any policy.

    The nail in the coffin that told me you were an unserious fool is when you said “climate change” and gave it proper noun status.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. It always amazes me how people turn to the pundits who have been consistently wrong every step of the way as some final arbiter.

    Seriously if Kristol or Brooks says something boneheaded about immigration, they’ll get dogpiled but “Trump can’t beat Hillary” gets said and half of you throw up your hands and shout “WELL I GUESS THEYRE RIGHT”.

    Doom masturbation.

    Second, people kvetch at Trump about “policy” when he has released several. Someone show me Hillary’s policy IRT confiscating 200 million firearms from people who bought them specifically because of that reason (the government deciding to take their guns).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. prole says:
    @Prof. Woland
    Part of the frustration over Hillary Clinton not having been coronated already is that women would vastly rather not go through a drag down knock out affair to assume power. Why should they? Right now they do a pretty good job getting others to wield power for them. The women's movement could literally expend their entire political capitol to elect her and for what? Equality? That is the last thing they want. It would be vastly better for the feminists if she could just ascend up onto a pedestal and radiate her glory but instead she has to muck around like the whoring lawyer that she is.

    Radiate what glory ? Hillary is an embarrassment to most feminists, riding the coattails of a man who constantly cheated on her, a known sexual predator.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Andrew
    "which brings the total to 271, which means he wins."

    Republicans need to get away from the "path to 270" rubbish. Narrowly trying to win an election generally means you are going to lose. The Democrats tried that in 2000 and 2004 and let the Republicans barely eke by, but otherwise they went for the jugular.

    We should instead aim for 350+ like Obama did, knowing that if we lose a few, which is inevitable, we will still win. I honestly think there is a chance for a 450+ wipeout, especially if Trump can pull off the NY upset.

    For Trump going for 350, that means competing for most of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (we can let MA, RI, and MD, and DC slide), the industrial midwest in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa, and sandy swing states Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. This also has the advantage for Trump of making his travel itineraries simple and letting him sleep at one of his homes most nights.

    WI, MN, CO, VA, and OR will be pulled along by external events nationally rather than overt campaigning - they are not Trump country.

    Consider for a moment that winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida early is an opportunity to call the race at 11p EST and start partying, something Republicans haven't gotten to do since 1988! There is a lot of pent up psychological frustration to win big that is going to come into play.

    I didn’t say NJ, I said MI which has 16 electoral votes to NJ’s 10. As a realist, I have to go for 270 and save the 350+ for 2020, his reelection campaign.

    WI; MN; OR have not gone GOP for over thirty yrs and I see no direct evidence that it will this time. Trump lost both WI and MN so there clearly aren’t that many whites in those states that are pro-Trump. Simply isn’t gonna happen. In fact, the Plains states areas have usually gone Democratic in the GE and there’s no real proof that Trump is gonna carry them either. He can’ waste time going for where the ducks aren’t. FL; PA; and MI are the keys. He wins those, he’s at 271 and he wins. First he has to win. Doesn’t matter how its done.

    Now, if Bernie decides to run third party, THEN you have a strong point and Trump would no doubt carry many states that otherwise he wouldn’t.

    I mean, sure we’d all like to see Trump win CA and ballgame’s over, Trump wins.

    Notice what you just said. “Swing states” FL; NV; and NM. Its a shame that these states are swing states when for decades they were fairly reliable GOP wins. This is the direct result of immigration policies. Same thing with VA. That was a solid GOP state for nearly fifty yrs. I have to assume that a large portion of why the GOP lost it was due to Obama. Now Trump did win VA but it was close. Perhaps he can do better there now that he’s the nominee.

    Also, this is an example where carrying 15% of the black vote could aid Trump. If he can get that 15% in a state like VA, coupled with most of the Appalachian down market rural whites in the state, and he wins VA and the 13 electoral votes that go with it.

    OH could go either way. Trump probably would’ve won OH if it hadn’t been for Kasich. It will largely depend on whether he can get the southern portion of the state to turn out to vote for him. Who knows.

    I gave a reasonable path to 270 because CA and other states with tons of electoral votes aren’t in play. If Trump actually carried NY that would indeed be awesome, but come on. Have to be realistic.

    No, FL; PA; and MI. That’s a clear path to 270 and a very good one. Any additional states he carries is icing on the cake (or on the wall to be more accurate).

    Whatever it takes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Andrew
    "My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him."

    Trump's wife is a recent immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, and 4 of his 5 children were born of an immigrant. He has a very compelling personal story to use to show he is not in any way prejudiced against immigrants per se, just illegals. And he has not even begun to use this story.

    "Most women will vote for Hillary."

    My gut is that Trump will start displaying and describing women he has employed in high positions for decades with equal or better pay and contrast that to Hillary, who cannot even pay women in her Senate office equally with her male employees even as she decries wage discrimination.

    Trump has already neutralized all the religious right social issue nonsense for the election, so the decision for or against him will be on economics, security, illegal immigration/border control, and personal trust. There won't be any campaign discussion this year of birth control and transgender bathroom access or denying white women who are raped by a black criminal an abortion.

    Most women may vote for Hillary unless this turns into a landslide, but these will primarily be blacks, other minorities, and single white women Trump was never going to win. On the other hand, he is going to push her into being incredibly alienating towards men, starting with #OffTheReservation.

    Also, remember some recent polls that show that like about 72% of white men are not going to vote for Hillary so if anyone has a major gender gap it’s her. And now that Hillary has made gun control a signature issue for her campaign she’s almost basically writing off a major section of the total white male vote, which is crazy but entirely predictable given her volatile personality. Bill never made that kind of mistake while campaigning. Basically Hillary isn’t offering men (mainly white men) a thing, much less a strong compelling reason to vote for her and for the most part they won’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. prole says:
    @Andrew
    "which brings the total to 271, which means he wins."

    Republicans need to get away from the "path to 270" rubbish. Narrowly trying to win an election generally means you are going to lose. The Democrats tried that in 2000 and 2004 and let the Republicans barely eke by, but otherwise they went for the jugular.

    We should instead aim for 350+ like Obama did, knowing that if we lose a few, which is inevitable, we will still win. I honestly think there is a chance for a 450+ wipeout, especially if Trump can pull off the NY upset.

    For Trump going for 350, that means competing for most of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (we can let MA, RI, and MD, and DC slide), the industrial midwest in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa, and sandy swing states Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. This also has the advantage for Trump of making his travel itineraries simple and letting him sleep at one of his homes most nights.

    WI, MN, CO, VA, and OR will be pulled along by external events nationally rather than overt campaigning - they are not Trump country.

    Consider for a moment that winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida early is an opportunity to call the race at 11p EST and start partying, something Republicans haven't gotten to do since 1988! There is a lot of pent up psychological frustration to win big that is going to come into play.

    Excellent idea..Trump should try to win New York, New Jersey and PA. These people are comfortable with Trump’s brashness and he will do much better than most expect with Black voters in these states. They know Trump well , thus it will be difficult for Hillary to tar him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Prof. Woland
    The primary for the Democrats is more than just seeing who the last candidate standing is. That person also has to have solidified the backing of the Democratic holy troika; Blacks, Latinos, and Women. Their coalition is like a three legged stool. All it takes is for one to be missing. What is even worse, they have to always be looking over their shoulder regarding turnout. This is why the Democratic Primary never ceases. It is not a contest of ideas as much as a one to see who can get the highest turnout based on identity politics.

    You do know that there are women who are not extremely pro-gun control, right? You do know that there are groups like the “2nd Amendment Sisters”, and other groups of women who proudly carry guns? In fact, over the last decade women have registered for more gun permits than at any time in history so if the NRA and other groups can exploit this fact among women, it’s gonna take another chunk out of the Democratic coalition.

    Also as to your point about voter turnout in primaries, Trump has been setting records for registering more voters in GOP history and GOP turnout in all the primaries so far as exceeded Democratic turnout over all by almost 2 to 1, so yeah, its very much possible that the Democrats are getting their knickers in a twist over the real possibility that they could blow it in November. And now their candidate just made a major issue of her campaign, gun control.

    Thanks Hillary, for helping Trump solidify the South so he doesn’t have to overspend there and can now focus on PA; MI; and other battleground states. Keep gaffing up like that and giving moderates and independents (who aren’t particularly strong on gun control per se) a reason to give Trump a second and more serious look.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    Any recent immigrant won’t

    is what NuLaba assumed in UK .
    Turns out the only people as keen as the fabled “neo-nazis” (who they?) to kick the ladder away/bar the door etc. are the more recent tides of ingrates and plunderers.
    You should hear what eg Sikhs or Jamaicans say about the “Poles” (anyone east of the Oder, from Tallinn to Plovdiv; apparently Europeans all look the same, to them). Never mind the Muz/Desi/Ghan whatever subcontinentals, seems to revolve around decapitation or slavery, but it’s all a bit too screechy, spitty and mad to decipher. I’ve no idea what the Chinese say, and neither does anyone else.
    I can’t tell you what the “Poles” say about them, or the sacred Refugees from Failure following hard on their heels in turn, because I’d be interned. SsssSSsssSSsssss .. as Spurs fans are used to hearing wherever they go.

    I fully expect UKIP to become an effnick-dominated outfit going forward, as their plan appears to be to shut off Wite migras (them “poles” from the EU) and haul in bucketload after bucketload of erstwhile Commonwealth/Empire dossers, which the EU currently makes awkward. Back to the ’50s and ’60s, in other words.
    But until Brit wages and conditions are “harmonised”* with say, Saigon, or Ougadougu, not one single business operator or any of their political catspaws will step away from the global, all-you-can-eat, serf labour and people-farming buffet.

    *lovely BruxoStrasbourgian technical term there. Used to be known as “reduced to paupers”, in the good old days. Off to the workhouse/van Diemen’s Land with ‘em.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The story I heard was two Irishmen were coming down the gangplank in New York, and the first one steps off, and the second one bumps into him, and the first turns around and says, "Who you pushing, ya immigrant!" We will see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @The most deplorable one
    The only poll that counts is the one on November 8.

    He beat her in the Rasmussen poll, he tied her in another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. HA says:
    @SPMoore8
    My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won't vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

    And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama's swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

    Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

    So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

    >Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him.

    I wouldn’t bet on the recent-immigrant shopkeepers or cabdrivers in the #BLM heartland (in some cases, even if they happen to be Muslim). Eastern Europeans, be they Poles and Hungarians or be they Russians and Armenians, will also likely be rooting for Trump. Same goes for a significant number of Christians from places like Iraq or Syria or Nigeria.

    Moreover, from my limited perspective, no one loves trashy conspicuous displays of wealth like some of our recent immigrants. At the least, they’re not going to be repulsed by the man.

    You put all those together and they’re certainly not the majority of recent immigrants (and I’m only talking about legal ones), and I think you’ll see the issue is far murkier than you make it out to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Ed says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    Michigan won’t flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there’s a shot he can flip it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew
    "Michigan won’t flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there’s a shot he can flip it."

    Yeah just impossible. I mean who can remember the last time Republicans held the Governorship in Michigan, both chambers of the State Legislature, and the elected row offices? That couldn't possibly happen, could it?
    , @Clyde

    Michigan won’t flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there’s a shot he can flip it.
     
    Pennsylvania has a very high (percentage) retired senior citizen population. They prefer to remain due to close families? Ethnic Catholic families? They remember how America used to be. They will inclined to vote for a man who proclaims he will "Make America great again". And senior citizen voting turnout is always strong nationwide.
    , @Hibernian
    Michigan has few white liberals outside of Ann Arbor. It's not Illinois. They elect somewhat conservative Repub Governors there, not like Illinois with Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, and Rauner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @candid_observer
    But consider what would happen if the Muslims engage in further terrorism either here or in Europe, or if there's a prominent case of an illegal immigrant committing violence on a particularly sympathetic American citizen.

    Such an event, or events, aren't even unlikely across the full length of the campaign season, given their frequency.

    What's Hillary's answer going to be? We haven't loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?

    “What’s Hillary’s answer going to be? We haven’t loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?”

    Yes. (((MSM))) too.

    Merkel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Bill says:
    @Anonymous
    Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn't one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about "conservative values." It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    It’s hard to imagine how you could get it more backwards. Each rube who voted for Ted Cruz confirms every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base. Muh principles! Muh Konstitution! How pathetically stupid.

    It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    Yeah, voting the actual interests of your country, your countrymen, and your kin is “tribal, nativist rage.” You pathetic cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Bill says:
    @Beefy Levinson
    The people who are so confidently predicting a Trump loss in November are largely the same people who assured us that Trump was a joke, that he'd fade away before the end of 2015, and that surely he's gone too far this time and the voters will punish him.

    At this rate, I expect Hillary to get BTFO in a 40 state landslide for Trump in November.

    Here is my favorite Trump prediction from these morons:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Bill says:
    @Truth
    Gents:

    I think one of the most comical developments on this site is that after years of ridicule, sneering condescension, and holier than though predictions of the future from Steve, and most of the rest of you, you guys are getting the presidential candidate you always wanted, and deserved:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwgHjfagBo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DteLV6mts

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzwHgeg5b2E

    Nah. The real irony is that blacks are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of The Wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Exactly, and they're too DUMB to vote for it !
    , @Truth
    OK, we'll try this again:

    THERE'S...NOT...GOING...TO BE...ANY...FUCKING...WALL...!

    No matter who's president. It's theatre, Ace, THEATRE. Nothing more.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Mr. Blank says:

    It feels like every major news event I’ve lived through since Jan. 1, 2000 has been something experts repeatedly assured me would “never happen.” So I’m gonna hold off on predicting an inevitable Trump defeat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Bill says:
    @International Jew
    A NYT reader explains Trump:

    ...an overt, unapologetic bigot has been chosen by millions of Americans. ...so why would so many voters choose to swallow this poison pill?

    For the same reason a young black man seeks to use a gun to rectify a perceived wrong: because the establishment no longer works for their benefit.
     
    From the comments to
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2016/05/05/opinion/black-men-violence-and-fierce-urgency.html

    Because, when you really stop and think about it, ghetto blacks and middle class white guys are basically the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Precisely. And effecting change by voting, or by shooting people: what difference does it make?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Whiskey says: • Website

    Hillary! has an alienating, nasty style of politics that is repulsive to almost all Straight men and many women. Trump has baited her into attacking so he can bring in Clinton’s alleged rapes and Hillary!’s attacks and degradation of character of the women making the accusations: Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, etc.

    A normal Cuckservative Republican could and would not play this, but Trump is a superb counter puncher.

    War on Women indeed.

    Hillary’s gun confiscation measures will increase Trump’s base turnout; by contrast it is not likely to increase Black female turnout the way Obama, strangely silent, did in 2008 and 2012.

    Mass Third World Immigration INCREASE = reduced Social Security and Medicare for Americans, something Trump will argue as the counter puncher. Yes by all means Hillary! push for gang bangers from Central America to get the money instead of working people counting on Social Security and Medicare.

    Trump can argue that allowing them in will make everyone poorer — because its true!

    If Hillary! were smart she’d run on various give-aways; free college, eliminating student loan debt, guaranteed income etc. Instead she’s out of money and is running on the Goldman Sachs platform of corporate welfare and hate-White-Man identity politics.

    President Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. res says:
    @Richard of Melbourne
    The RCP figures are interesting, but has anyone looked at the performance of the individual polling organisations in the primaries? Alternatively, their performance in previous presidential elections?

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record - or a bad record, for that matter - so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record – or a bad record, for that matter – so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).

    This is one thing 538 does well. Here is their take:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

    In particular note the Rasmussen R+2.3 mean bias which is highly relevant for interpreting the recent Trump over Hillary polls.

    P.S. I might look like a 538 basher in some of my recent comments, but I actually have a good deal of respect for their methodology. I’m just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses (due to susceptibility to bias). I’m also angry that Nate Silver does not seem to have learned anything from his Trump mistakes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    >I’m just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses...

    The other systematic bias w.r.t. that pollsters underestimating Trump is that anyone who votes for Trump -- even if solely for the reason that they believe the others are even worse -- knows what the media think of him (and by extension, of anyone who votes for him), and so they are less likely to admit their voting preferences.

    , @Richard of Melbourne
    Thanks res, much appreciated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. One thing worth bearing in mind about Trump’s underprediction in polls: it’s likely to be more significant in a general election poll than in a Republican primary poll.

    If the problem is that a number of people won’t register their support for Trump because they don’t want to be shamed by friends or family or have to explain themselves to the person taking their opinion, then that reluctance is more likely to be felt by those who haven’t already identified as Republicans. I think most Republicans have long inured themselves to being called out as racists, bigots, and ignoramuses. This will, though, be a very new and very unpleasant experience for most voters who haven’t identified as Republicans. I’d expect a non-trivial number of them who support Trump to refuse to own up to their true sentiments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Andrew says:
    @Ed
    Michigan won't flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there's a shot he can flip it.

    “Michigan won’t flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there’s a shot he can flip it.”

    Yeah just impossible. I mean who can remember the last time Republicans held the Governorship in Michigan, both chambers of the State Legislature, and the elected row offices? That couldn’t possibly happen, could it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. HA says:
    @res

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record – or a bad record, for that matter – so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).
     
    This is one thing 538 does well. Here is their take:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
    In particular note the Rasmussen R+2.3 mean bias which is highly relevant for interpreting the recent Trump over Hillary polls.

    P.S. I might look like a 538 basher in some of my recent comments, but I actually have a good deal of respect for their methodology. I'm just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses (due to susceptibility to bias). I'm also angry that Nate Silver does not seem to have learned anything from his Trump mistakes.

    >I’m just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses…

    The other systematic bias w.r.t. that pollsters underestimating Trump is that anyone who votes for Trump — even if solely for the reason that they believe the others are even worse — knows what the media think of him (and by extension, of anyone who votes for him), and so they are less likely to admit their voting preferences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Bill
    Because, when you really stop and think about it, ghetto blacks and middle class white guys are basically the same.

    Precisely. And effecting change by voting, or by shooting people: what difference does it make?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. SPMoore8 says:
    @Expletive Deleted

    Any recent immigrant won’t
     
    is what NuLaba assumed in UK .
    Turns out the only people as keen as the fabled "neo-nazis" (who they?) to kick the ladder away/bar the door etc. are the more recent tides of ingrates and plunderers.
    You should hear what eg Sikhs or Jamaicans say about the "Poles" (anyone east of the Oder, from Tallinn to Plovdiv; apparently Europeans all look the same, to them). Never mind the Muz/Desi/Ghan whatever subcontinentals, seems to revolve around decapitation or slavery, but it's all a bit too screechy, spitty and mad to decipher. I've no idea what the Chinese say, and neither does anyone else.
    I can't tell you what the "Poles" say about them, or the sacred Refugees from Failure following hard on their heels in turn, because I'd be interned. SsssSSsssSSsssss .. as Spurs fans are used to hearing wherever they go.

    I fully expect UKIP to become an effnick-dominated outfit going forward, as their plan appears to be to shut off Wite migras (them "poles" from the EU) and haul in bucketload after bucketload of erstwhile Commonwealth/Empire dossers, which the EU currently makes awkward. Back to the '50s and '60s, in other words.
    But until Brit wages and conditions are "harmonised"* with say, Saigon, or Ougadougu, not one single business operator or any of their political catspaws will step away from the global, all-you-can-eat, serf labour and people-farming buffet.

    *lovely BruxoStrasbourgian technical term there. Used to be known as "reduced to paupers", in the good old days. Off to the workhouse/van Diemen's Land with 'em.

    The story I heard was two Irishmen were coming down the gangplank in New York, and the first one steps off, and the second one bumps into him, and the first turns around and says, “Who you pushing, ya immigrant!” We will see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. O.T. – Haven’t seen any Trumpites on The Donald’s announcement that he will finance his campaign traditionally. Trump is on record that when candidates accept large donations, they’re bought. Much of his early appeal derived from his self-financing. How does he walk something like that back? [On the other hand, how does he propose to incentivize potential donors?]

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Maybe he doesn't need large donations?

    His primary campaign cost what? 10 million?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Intelligent Dasein
    Trump has garnered more Republican voters than anyone else in the history of time, while Clinton has fewer voters now than she had in 2008. Furthermore, I'm not even sure Clinton will be her party's nominee. She's losing state after state and the email scandal has yet to be fully resolved. Look for a resurgence of the 'Draft Biden" movement once it becomes apparent that Hillary could actually lose to Donald Trump.

    Also, the news media are about to pivot in favor of Trump, beginning with Megyn Kelly's exclusive interview. They all want to ride the Trump Train.

    Those head-to-head national polls mean absolutely butt-crack nothing now, since they were all taken at a time when the Republican field was still open and thus a free playground for fantasy and projection. Now we have a nominee and we have a race. We have a national spotlight that is about to shine very brightly on the candidates and their doings. Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs.

    “Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs.”

    And then will she go away? Sweet, sweet Jesus, will she ever go away?

    I think not. She must be put away. Crooked Hillary belongs in the Big House, not the White House.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Anonymous
    The Republican Party just killed itself:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/goodbye-republican-party-and-good-riddance/

    No bias in THAT article !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Bill
    Nah. The real irony is that blacks are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of The Wall.

    Exactly, and they’re too DUMB to vote for it !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    …if UT does flip cause they’re all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV…

    I don’t care what the polls say in May; Hillary’s not carrying Utah. My guess is, Trump carries all eight of the Rocky Mountain states (but New Mexico may be tricky).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Clyde says:
    @Ed
    Michigan won't flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there's a shot he can flip it.

    Michigan won’t flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there’s a shot he can flip it.

    Pennsylvania has a very high (percentage) retired senior citizen population. They prefer to remain due to close families? Ethnic Catholic families? They remember how America used to be. They will inclined to vote for a man who proclaims he will “Make America great again”. And senior citizen voting turnout is always strong nationwide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Svigor says:

    O.T. – Haven’t seen any Trumpites on The Donald’s announcement that he will finance his campaign traditionally. Trump is on record that when candidates accept large donations, they’re bought. Much of his early appeal derived from his self-financing. How does he walk something like that back? [On the other hand, how does he propose to incentivize potential donors?]

    Not that you’ll really pay attention to my answer, but maybe someone else will:

    1. Trump is set for life.
    2. Trump has made his bones as a traitor to his class.
    3. At least Trump calls out the system as dirty. Points for honesty.
    4. Who do you think is better than Trump on this issue?

    Clinton fortune & foundation is built entirely on political money.

    As for incentives: “Make America Great Again,” “America First,” etc.

    P.S., most of the buying happens on layaway. The payoff comes after the pol leaves office. See #1.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Hibernian says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it. Hillary has just officially announced that her two signature issues for the GE are Gun Control and Immigration Reform. Basically the two issues that are ivory tower wonk based, whereas Trump has offered immigration as in: build a wall, and enforce existing laws vs illegal aliens as well as get a handle on unfair trade agreements, like NAFTA, which her husband signed
    into law.

    Hillary's nomination confirms every stereotype conservatives have said about the liberal Democrats that control their party for yrs, namely, they don't give a damn for the white working class and havent since the '70's. All they care about are the gays, environment, gun control, etc. which, except for the 2nd Amendment issue, doesn't register with ordinary voters.


    FACT: It has been noted repeatedly in the MSM that Trump has brought millions of new voters into the primaries to vote for him, to cross over and vote or ones who haven't voted in decades. Hillary has none of that. There's no cross over appeal for her, and millions of GOP voters aren't suddenly gonna switch and vote for her in November.

    If anyone is doing the "Guns, gays, etc" stuff this time round it's Hillary. Trump's offering concrete issues that voters care about. Even the issue of Immigration, WHO has made that his signature issue for over the last yr? Not Hillary. WHO has been driving the election for nearly a year? It certainly hasn't been Jeb!

    Something to consider.

    I think she’s got some cross over appeal for country club Republicans. The more liberal of them have been going Democratic since the ’70s. Trump may accelerate that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    However, in sheer total numbers, there simply are not enough of these SWPL's to counterbalance the Reagan Democrats, blue collars etc who will vote for Trump. Again, with her officially coming out and stating that Gun Control will be a major issue in her campaign, she has just lost the entire South, and it certainly won't help her in PA; parts of OH; MI where there are gun owners and dont want anymore additional gun control legislation from Uncle Sam.

    Also, by comparing side by side the total number of voters in both parties primaries, you simply do not see millions of GOP voters switching parties so they can line up and vote for Hillary. Among white Democratic voters they have been supporting Bernie. Point being, contrary to what William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Ben Shapiro, etc may have said, there's no massive defection to Hillary from the GOP. Of the two parties, its usually been the Democrats that split their votes during the GE while GOPs tend to vote straight party.

    What we do know about this GOP primary season, based on the exit polls and total numbers of votes cast, is that Trump has been setting record historical levels of voters either voting for first time, haven't voted in decades or have been staunch Democrats but have decided to switch and vote for him. You simply are not seeing that kind of total number of massive millions of voters nationwide in the Democratic primaries who are enthusiastically voting for Hillary. If anything, more white Democratic voters of the SWPL yuppie kind have been voting for Sanders instead. The fact that Hillary has decided to make Immigration the other main issue of her GE campaign is directly due to Trump. So Trump has directly influenced his party's primary election as well as the GE by the issues that he has chosen to highlight. Which candidate has had the most total amount of national attention of either party this yr so far? That's who is driving the GE on the issues being highlighted.

    As always, there are more lower class/lower middle class than the top 1-10% in sheer total numbers. Total numbers wise, Trump is cleaning up on these voters which can potentially translate into more electoral votes over Romney's 206 total in '12. What kind of policies did "47%" Mitt offer them directly? Answer: Nothing. And yet he came up only 64 electoral votes shy of the White House.

    FL; PA; and MI. These three states are the battlegrounds. If Trump wins them then he gets the White House.

    And, ca.70% of the total white vote, which is not going to Hillary.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Hibernian says:
    @Ed
    Michigan won't flip too many blacks, Arabs & white liberals. PA is 80% white so there's a shot he can flip it.

    Michigan has few white liberals outside of Ann Arbor. It’s not Illinois. They elect somewhat conservative Repub Governors there, not like Illinois with Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, and Rauner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. prusmc says:
    @candid_observer
    But consider what would happen if the Muslims engage in further terrorism either here or in Europe, or if there's a prominent case of an illegal immigrant committing violence on a particularly sympathetic American citizen.

    Such an event, or events, aren't even unlikely across the full length of the campaign season, given their frequency.

    What's Hillary's answer going to be? We haven't loved Muslims and illegal immigrants enough?

    There will be no muslim terror outbreak in the US. Valarie Jarret has passed the word to the centers of influence. Same with BLM. A long hot summer could awaken slumbering white citizens. They will never actively resist but they might decide to vote or even vote contrary to the AFL-CIO instructions. That is among that small per cent of private sector union members. The public sector employees would even more strongly support HRC because unrest means more government programs, funding and employment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Hibernian
    I think she's got some cross over appeal for country club Republicans. The more liberal of them have been going Democratic since the '70s. Trump may accelerate that.

    However, in sheer total numbers, there simply are not enough of these SWPL’s to counterbalance the Reagan Democrats, blue collars etc who will vote for Trump. Again, with her officially coming out and stating that Gun Control will be a major issue in her campaign, she has just lost the entire South, and it certainly won’t help her in PA; parts of OH; MI where there are gun owners and dont want anymore additional gun control legislation from Uncle Sam.

    Also, by comparing side by side the total number of voters in both parties primaries, you simply do not see millions of GOP voters switching parties so they can line up and vote for Hillary. Among white Democratic voters they have been supporting Bernie. Point being, contrary to what William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Ben Shapiro, etc may have said, there’s no massive defection to Hillary from the GOP. Of the two parties, its usually been the Democrats that split their votes during the GE while GOPs tend to vote straight party.

    What we do know about this GOP primary season, based on the exit polls and total numbers of votes cast, is that Trump has been setting record historical levels of voters either voting for first time, haven’t voted in decades or have been staunch Democrats but have decided to switch and vote for him. You simply are not seeing that kind of total number of massive millions of voters nationwide in the Democratic primaries who are enthusiastically voting for Hillary. If anything, more white Democratic voters of the SWPL yuppie kind have been voting for Sanders instead. The fact that Hillary has decided to make Immigration the other main issue of her GE campaign is directly due to Trump. So Trump has directly influenced his party’s primary election as well as the GE by the issues that he has chosen to highlight. Which candidate has had the most total amount of national attention of either party this yr so far? That’s who is driving the GE on the issues being highlighted.

    As always, there are more lower class/lower middle class than the top 1-10% in sheer total numbers. Total numbers wise, Trump is cleaning up on these voters which can potentially translate into more electoral votes over Romney’s 206 total in ’12. What kind of policies did “47%” Mitt offer them directly? Answer: Nothing. And yet he came up only 64 electoral votes shy of the White House.

    FL; PA; and MI. These three states are the battlegrounds. If Trump wins them then he gets the White House.

    And, ca.70% of the total white vote, which is not going to Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Gun control is going to win in the long run, because we're letting into this country tens of millions of people whom the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would never allow to be armed. I don't think most NRA members want them packing heat, either.

    The gun lobby will have to get off its holster and become the borders lobby, and real soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Stephen R. Diamond
    O.T. - Haven't seen any Trumpites on The Donald's announcement that he will finance his campaign traditionally. Trump is on record that when candidates accept large donations, they're bought. Much of his early appeal derived from his self-financing. How does he walk something like that back? [On the other hand, how does he propose to incentivize potential donors?]

    Maybe he doesn’t need large donations?

    His primary campaign cost what? 10 million?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Anonymous
    Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? Actually, couldn't one go a step further? If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable? None of this was ever about "conservative values." It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    None of this was ever about “conservative values.” It was all just tribal, nativist rage.

    Frisky tusk, it’s unfortunate that you are not an actual conservative. And that someone apparently has fed you some line of b.s. about what “conservative” means. (For example, it does not mean “he who wants the lowest marginal tax rates.”)

    A conservative is someone who cherishes his people, his culture, his nation, his civilization and wishes to preserve them, pass them on down through the generations.

    He has the wisdom to appreciate that he’s a link in a chain and part of something much bigger than himself. He realizes that the traditions and values of his people, worked out organically over generations have deep embedded evolutionary “wisdom” of their own and shouldn’t just be tossed out willy-nilly by the “reformers” and “progressives” who think they can engineer society, but pretty much without exception just screw it up. At heart a conservative is someone who loves his people, culture, nation and civilization and wishes to preserve them.

    What you belittle as “nativist rage” could be more aptly called “intense passion for preserving one’s nation” … which is what actual “conservatives”–”conserve” is a hint–actually feel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @countenance
    There was never much polling out of Missouri and no polling before primary day. The RCP averages for Missouri came from late 2015 polls.

    Ft. Hays university (in Kansas) conducted a weeklong poll in early March. It was the only one conducted less than two weeks out from the actual primary. Consequently it was the RCP average I used.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. As for taking a stab at a general narrative as to why Trump fared better vis-a-vis polling predictions as the campaign wore on, early on people had inhibitions about how serious his candidacy was and whether a vote for Trump was a vote thrown away. As his staying power became established, the reverse-Bradley effect (that I would’ve predicted from the get-go) started to kick in. To the extent this assessment is accurate, Trump should end up outperforming polling expectations–whatever they are–on election day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @Anonymous
    The Republican Party just killed itself:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/goodbye-republican-party-and-good-riddance/

    I skimmed it–what an annoying twerp.

    I swear “conservative” twerps like this are worse than their lefty counterparts. The young lefties are just the typical hotheads who think they know better than everyone at all of 30, and love the big state–and the chance to use it to mess with people. (A more or less accurate account of leftism.)

    Whereas this guys’ moronic spew … thinks he’s a conservative and doesn’t have any idea what conservative means. Just stupid and pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    He's a comedian taking lunatic Glenn Beck's coin. The first comment was from someone identifying themselves as "WalkInGoodness".

    I leave these people to their own conservative-religious intellectual masturbation.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "I skimmed it–what an annoying twerp."

    Agreed. Guys like Walsh talk about "conservative principles" - as if conservatism was a set of abstract principles. Conservatism means conserving your people and your nation, something which Conservatism Inc. has proved entirely incapable of doing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Lot
    Fox was a right of center businessman who broke the 70 year monoply of the PRI on the Mexican presidency.

    Fox was a right of center businessman who broke the 70 year monoply of the PRI on the Mexican presidency.

    Right of the Mexican center, whatever that is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @DCThrowback
    oh man what happened in October 1980

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

    sh*t, sounds like having the ex-CIA head honcho on your ticket might help in a situation like this

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life's a roller coaster!

    of course, not so much when he tries to off you 6 months later, but hey, life’s a roller coaster!

    The Bushes are Hinckley descendants, but Reagan named his son Ronald Prescott.

    So tell me, which is the coincidence and which is the conspiracy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Jon0815
    Of course he outperformed his polls in raw percentage, because the polls included undecideds, some of whom ended up voting for him. What matters is how the point spread in the polls compared to the actual point spread.

    Trump beat his spread in Indiana by 6 points (RCP average had him winning by 11 points, and he won by 17), which is certainly impressive, but Cruz beat his spread in Wisconsin by 8 points. I don't know which one did better on average.

    Regardless, even if Trump usually beat the spread by a few points with primary voters, that doesn't mean he would do the same with general election voters.

    Yes, it’s worth pointing out that this overperformance is, to some extent, expected since undecided likely voters are excluded. That is somewhat offset by the votes for people no longer actively campaigning who aren’t inquired about in polls but who still end up getting votes (Cruz lost to Ben Carson in one of New York’s voting districts, for example) and for those who vote as “uncommitted”.

    What is noteworthy, though, is that his overperformance gained considerable steam over time even as the number of undecideds decreased. What is clear regarding Trump is that the people who say they are going to vote for him do, in fact, end up voting for him, and then some.

    As for the margin of victory/defeat method, it presages the general even less since there were never any GOP contests between just two people. In Wisconsin, for example, the story wasn’t that Trump fared poorly, it was the Kasich collapsed and almost all of his support went to Cruz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Anonymous
    The Republican Party just killed itself:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/goodbye-republican-party-and-good-riddance/

    I can’t keep The Blaze and The Blade straight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @res

    It would be good to know if some pollsters have a good record – or a bad record, for that matter – so that their numbers can be given an appropriate premium (or discount).
     
    This is one thing 538 does well. Here is their take:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
    In particular note the Rasmussen R+2.3 mean bias which is highly relevant for interpreting the recent Trump over Hillary polls.

    P.S. I might look like a 538 basher in some of my recent comments, but I actually have a good deal of respect for their methodology. I'm just disappointed that I no longer feel like I can trust their analyses (due to susceptibility to bias). I'm also angry that Nate Silver does not seem to have learned anything from his Trump mistakes.

    Thanks res, much appreciated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    Yojimbo, you’re overthinking the state thing. (And your lose Utah thing is just nuts.)

    If Trump doesn’t blow himself up and is competitive in the national popular vote, then the state thing is pretty straightforward:

    – In that scenario, there’s really no Romney state Trump would not carry — 2o6 electoral votes.
    – He needs to win back a bunch of the Bush II states.
    – Florida and Ohio should be straightforward–and if he can’t win them then he wasn’t competitive nationally and … he’s dead. They comprise 47 of the 64 he needs.
    – Bush also carried Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire in 2000, but the 2010 redistricting means all that is not necessary–Trump just needs 17 more electoral votes.
    – If Trump can win Virginia (13)
    — then anything (CO, NV, IA, NH) works.
    – If Trump can’t take back Virginia because it’s too “establishment”
    — then Trump needs Colorado (8) and two of three of IA (6), NV(6), NH (4)
    – If Trump can’t take back Virginia because it’s too “establishment” *and* can’t win Colorado or Nevada because they are too “Hispanic”–i.e. Mexican, then he must break through in a big “Midwestern” (Big 10) industrial state”–Pennsylvania is the obvious target.

    Trump wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and he’s President Trump.

    But this state by state stuff really isn’t the issue.

    Run a strong *national* campaign:
    – Explain why his nationalist issues provide a better future for middle and working class Americans … without being a big a*hole.
    – Attack Hillary’s competence and corruption without being a big a*hole.
    – Attack Hillary’s useless, Washington\Wall-Street friendly same old shit.
    – Be a confident manly man … without being petty … ergo looking like a winner, a president.
    … and the national vote totals will come and the electoral college thing will take care of itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    No, I'm just offering up a larger point, namely: Trump shouldn't have a problem carrying the 206 electoral votes that Romney did in '12. The UT thing is due to some speculation last week that Utah may go for Hillary, though I can't imagine why they would but I was using that as an example of trading one state for another (e.g. trading UT in for NV and the 206 remains about the same).

    From there I use Romney's 206 as a base or pathway to 270.

    IF Trump wins FL; PA; and MI then he's at 271 and in the White House. Everything else is icing on the cake.

    All things considered, Trump ran a pretty solid primary campaign; always remembering that he had to face 16 other candidates, both the MSM and the Conservative Inc. established media, and most of the GOP establishment. Considering how many fronts he had to fight vs just to get to this level speaks well of the man. Now it's just him and Hillary, and as long as he does as you've outlined (the part about running a strong national campaign) then he should win.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    However, in sheer total numbers, there simply are not enough of these SWPL's to counterbalance the Reagan Democrats, blue collars etc who will vote for Trump. Again, with her officially coming out and stating that Gun Control will be a major issue in her campaign, she has just lost the entire South, and it certainly won't help her in PA; parts of OH; MI where there are gun owners and dont want anymore additional gun control legislation from Uncle Sam.

    Also, by comparing side by side the total number of voters in both parties primaries, you simply do not see millions of GOP voters switching parties so they can line up and vote for Hillary. Among white Democratic voters they have been supporting Bernie. Point being, contrary to what William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Ben Shapiro, etc may have said, there's no massive defection to Hillary from the GOP. Of the two parties, its usually been the Democrats that split their votes during the GE while GOPs tend to vote straight party.

    What we do know about this GOP primary season, based on the exit polls and total numbers of votes cast, is that Trump has been setting record historical levels of voters either voting for first time, haven't voted in decades or have been staunch Democrats but have decided to switch and vote for him. You simply are not seeing that kind of total number of massive millions of voters nationwide in the Democratic primaries who are enthusiastically voting for Hillary. If anything, more white Democratic voters of the SWPL yuppie kind have been voting for Sanders instead. The fact that Hillary has decided to make Immigration the other main issue of her GE campaign is directly due to Trump. So Trump has directly influenced his party's primary election as well as the GE by the issues that he has chosen to highlight. Which candidate has had the most total amount of national attention of either party this yr so far? That's who is driving the GE on the issues being highlighted.

    As always, there are more lower class/lower middle class than the top 1-10% in sheer total numbers. Total numbers wise, Trump is cleaning up on these voters which can potentially translate into more electoral votes over Romney's 206 total in '12. What kind of policies did "47%" Mitt offer them directly? Answer: Nothing. And yet he came up only 64 electoral votes shy of the White House.

    FL; PA; and MI. These three states are the battlegrounds. If Trump wins them then he gets the White House.

    And, ca.70% of the total white vote, which is not going to Hillary.

    Gun control is going to win in the long run, because we’re letting into this country tens of millions of people whom the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would never allow to be armed. I don’t think most NRA members want them packing heat, either.

    The gun lobby will have to get off its holster and become the borders lobby, and real soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Perhaps, but gun control won't win yet. And gun owners are fairly passionate about keeping their guns and they tend to vote. Most NRA members have fairly high rates of voting in favor of what they tend to see as the erosion of the 2nd Amendment. Hillary's making a calculated risk of uniting millions of gun owning voters, not that they wouldn't have voted anyway. But now with the cat out of the bag, there's even more reason for them to turn out in November.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    That's one specific reason they put in the 2nd amendment in the first place.


    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, ...

     

    You wouldn't say that the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would sever allow the Indians to be armed, so therefore they wouldn't want settlers on the frontier to be armed either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Truth says:
    @Bill
    Nah. The real irony is that blacks are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of The Wall.

    OK, we’ll try this again:

    THERE’S…NOT…GOING…TO BE…ANY…FUCKING…WALL…!

    No matter who’s president. It’s theatre, Ace, THEATRE. Nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    THERE’S…NOT…GOING…TO BE…ANY…[FRACKING]…WALL…!
     
    Because if there was, we'd have to hire blacks instead if browns. And nobody wants that.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Let's try it again for those who can't grasp it:

    "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!"--Obama

    "THE HELL I DIDN'T, AND THERE IT IS!"--Trump

    There's Trump Tower; Trump Casino, Trump Golf Course, and if elected there will be Trump WALL. Because IF there isn't, he won't be a second term president. He's made constant and consistent reference to a L-I-T-E-R-A-L W-A-L-L, as in an actual wall that other civilizations have built (e.g. The Great Wall of China. Was that a "figurative" wall or a REAL wall?)

    He thinks literally, in terms of images, yes certainly but also literally. A LITERAL wall seals the deal and gets the job done. If the wall literally gets built, then Trump is re-elected. It's called, delivering on what you promised in the GE.


    The 2020 campaign ads LITERALLY write themselves, with a smiling Trump at the Southern Border in front of the completed wall, staring into the camera:

    "They laughed at the idea, said I was foolish, even crazy, and that I could't possibly be serious. Well, folks, behold the wall! There it is, right on the southern border, just like I promised! And, YEAH, WE DID BUILD THAT! You the people, built it by working hard to keep America safe. And NOW America is starting to be made great again! Thank you for your ability to build the wall that I wanted to build!"

    Thing about a literal wall is that its like, you know, literal. It's there, everyone can see it, no one can call you a liar, about failing to deliver. Cause there it is, right on the border, just like he promised he would deliver during the GE.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary's campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

    Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney's 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

    FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

    PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

    MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

    Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that's the advice I'd give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I'm encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

    What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won't count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn't gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Also, if UT does flip cause they're all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

    On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She's not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

    "Whatever it takes"---Chuck Noll

    And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

    Or Reagan, who forfeited Michigan twice and thus the White House. Didn’t he know that auto company bailouts are in the Constitution, right after the Second Amendment?

    And don’t forget Ted Cruz throwing away Iowa by questioning ethanol. I mean, that’s in the Bible– gold, frankincense and E-85.

    Nobody who questions subsidies or bailouts ever gets elected. That’s why Bernie dropped out weeks ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Das
    You do know that Reagan stepped in and imposed import quotas on foreign automobiles to save the domestic auto industry when he was in office, right?

    You can be a badass libertarian purist and say "I don't care if the lifeblood industry in your state dies" or you can potentially win that state in the electoral college. You can't do both.

    Hillary is going to have fun explaining away her "Let the coal miners die!" remark in Pennsylvania this year.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Didn't CHRYSLER get a bailout? I don't recall Reagan being vs it during the debate. Yes, yes, Carter started it, but Reagan didn't oppose it either.

    Bernie has helped Ben and Jerry's quite a bit with dairy subsidies etc.

    Finish the sentence. No one who ever campaigns on increasing subsidies for certain favored US industries (where there are lots of blue collar jobs, etc) gets defeated in the GE either. It really doesn't hurt the candidate and oftentimes can help them win, depending on the specific bailout and for which industry. Now for the banking bailout like what McCain did in '08, then no, that doesn't tend to help cause that looks like a candidate who's in the pockets of the donor one percenters and not for the ordinary folks.

    Cruz is all for subsidies when it benefits TX. Shame he couldn't see the idea that most voters kinda, you know, want the wall on the Southern Border. Oh well, now he can run for re-election for the Senate.

    I mean, exit polls showed that Romney lost MI primarily due to being opposed to the bailout, along with the "47%" gaffe. But then, if he had been a strongly defined candidate from the start and not a globalist one percenter, Obama would've had a tough time defining him. But then a strongly defined candidate has to actually take strong stands on issues, not wait for the dust to clear and then attempt at "consensus" koombayah style of politics.

    Can't imagine Romney ever suggesting that he would've built a wall on the Southern Border.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Truth
    OK, we'll try this again:

    THERE'S...NOT...GOING...TO BE...ANY...FUCKING...WALL...!

    No matter who's president. It's theatre, Ace, THEATRE. Nothing more.

    THERE’S…NOT…GOING…TO BE…ANY…[FRACKING]…WALL…!

    Because if there was, we’d have to hire blacks instead if browns. And nobody wants that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Das says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.
     
    Or Reagan, who forfeited Michigan twice and thus the White House. Didn't he know that auto company bailouts are in the Constitution, right after the Second Amendment?

    And don't forget Ted Cruz throwing away Iowa by questioning ethanol. I mean, that's in the Bible-- gold, frankincense and E-85.

    Nobody who questions subsidies or bailouts ever gets elected. That's why Bernie dropped out weeks ago.

    You do know that Reagan stepped in and imposed import quotas on foreign automobiles to save the domestic auto industry when he was in office, right?

    You can be a badass libertarian purist and say “I don’t care if the lifeblood industry in your state dies” or you can potentially win that state in the electoral college. You can’t do both.

    Hillary is going to have fun explaining away her “Let the coal miners die!” remark in Pennsylvania this year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Truth
    OK, we'll try this again:

    THERE'S...NOT...GOING...TO BE...ANY...FUCKING...WALL...!

    No matter who's president. It's theatre, Ace, THEATRE. Nothing more.

    Let’s try it again for those who can’t grasp it:

    “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!”–Obama

    “THE HELL I DIDN’T, AND THERE IT IS!”–Trump

    There’s Trump Tower; Trump Casino, Trump Golf Course, and if elected there will be Trump WALL. Because IF there isn’t, he won’t be a second term president. He’s made constant and consistent reference to a L-I-T-E-R-A-L W-A-L-L, as in an actual wall that other civilizations have built (e.g. The Great Wall of China. Was that a “figurative” wall or a REAL wall?)

    He thinks literally, in terms of images, yes certainly but also literally. A LITERAL wall seals the deal and gets the job done. If the wall literally gets built, then Trump is re-elected. It’s called, delivering on what you promised in the GE.

    The 2020 campaign ads LITERALLY write themselves, with a smiling Trump at the Southern Border in front of the completed wall, staring into the camera:

    “They laughed at the idea, said I was foolish, even crazy, and that I could’t possibly be serious. Well, folks, behold the wall! There it is, right on the southern border, just like I promised! And, YEAH, WE DID BUILD THAT! You the people, built it by working hard to keep America safe. And NOW America is starting to be made great again! Thank you for your ability to build the wall that I wanted to build!”

    Thing about a literal wall is that its like, you know, literal. It’s there, everyone can see it, no one can call you a liar, about failing to deliver. Cause there it is, right on the border, just like he promised he would deliver during the GE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Trump's bias toward the tangible is a part of his appeal. Think Eisenhower: Interstate Highway System. I bet Trump thinks that way.
    , @Truth
    "Read...My..Lips...."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Reg Cæsar

    And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.
     
    Or Reagan, who forfeited Michigan twice and thus the White House. Didn't he know that auto company bailouts are in the Constitution, right after the Second Amendment?

    And don't forget Ted Cruz throwing away Iowa by questioning ethanol. I mean, that's in the Bible-- gold, frankincense and E-85.

    Nobody who questions subsidies or bailouts ever gets elected. That's why Bernie dropped out weeks ago.

    Didn’t CHRYSLER get a bailout? I don’t recall Reagan being vs it during the debate. Yes, yes, Carter started it, but Reagan didn’t oppose it either.

    Bernie has helped Ben and Jerry’s quite a bit with dairy subsidies etc.

    Finish the sentence. No one who ever campaigns on increasing subsidies for certain favored US industries (where there are lots of blue collar jobs, etc) gets defeated in the GE either. It really doesn’t hurt the candidate and oftentimes can help them win, depending on the specific bailout and for which industry. Now for the banking bailout like what McCain did in ’08, then no, that doesn’t tend to help cause that looks like a candidate who’s in the pockets of the donor one percenters and not for the ordinary folks.

    Cruz is all for subsidies when it benefits TX. Shame he couldn’t see the idea that most voters kinda, you know, want the wall on the Southern Border. Oh well, now he can run for re-election for the Senate.

    I mean, exit polls showed that Romney lost MI primarily due to being opposed to the bailout, along with the “47%” gaffe. But then, if he had been a strongly defined candidate from the start and not a globalist one percenter, Obama would’ve had a tough time defining him. But then a strongly defined candidate has to actually take strong stands on issues, not wait for the dust to clear and then attempt at “consensus” koombayah style of politics.

    Can’t imagine Romney ever suggesting that he would’ve built a wall on the Southern Border.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Reg Cæsar
    Gun control is going to win in the long run, because we're letting into this country tens of millions of people whom the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would never allow to be armed. I don't think most NRA members want them packing heat, either.

    The gun lobby will have to get off its holster and become the borders lobby, and real soon.

    Perhaps, but gun control won’t win yet. And gun owners are fairly passionate about keeping their guns and they tend to vote. Most NRA members have fairly high rates of voting in favor of what they tend to see as the erosion of the 2nd Amendment. Hillary’s making a calculated risk of uniting millions of gun owning voters, not that they wouldn’t have voted anyway. But now with the cat out of the bag, there’s even more reason for them to turn out in November.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @AnotherDad
    Yojimbo, you're overthinking the state thing. (And your lose Utah thing is just nuts.)

    If Trump doesn't blow himself up and is competitive in the national popular vote, then the state thing is pretty straightforward:

    -- In that scenario, there's really no Romney state Trump would not carry -- 2o6 electoral votes.
    -- He needs to win back a bunch of the Bush II states.
    -- Florida and Ohio should be straightforward--and if he can't win them then he wasn't competitive nationally and ... he's dead. They comprise 47 of the 64 he needs.
    -- Bush also carried Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire in 2000, but the 2010 redistricting means all that is not necessary--Trump just needs 17 more electoral votes.
    -- If Trump can win Virginia (13)
    -- then anything (CO, NV, IA, NH) works.
    -- If Trump can't take back Virginia because it's too "establishment"
    -- then Trump needs Colorado (8) and two of three of IA (6), NV(6), NH (4)
    -- If Trump can't take back Virginia because it's too "establishment" *and* can't win Colorado or Nevada because they are too "Hispanic"--i.e. Mexican, then he must break through in a big "Midwestern" (Big 10) industrial state"--Pennsylvania is the obvious target.

    Trump wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and he's President Trump.

    But this state by state stuff really isn't the issue.

    Run a strong *national* campaign:
    -- Explain why his nationalist issues provide a better future for middle and working class Americans ... without being a big a*hole.
    -- Attack Hillary's competence and corruption without being a big a*hole.
    -- Attack Hillary's useless, Washington\Wall-Street friendly same old shit.
    -- Be a confident manly man ... without being petty ... ergo looking like a winner, a president.
    ... and the national vote totals will come and the electoral college thing will take care of itself.

    No, I’m just offering up a larger point, namely: Trump shouldn’t have a problem carrying the 206 electoral votes that Romney did in ’12. The UT thing is due to some speculation last week that Utah may go for Hillary, though I can’t imagine why they would but I was using that as an example of trading one state for another (e.g. trading UT in for NV and the 206 remains about the same).

    From there I use Romney’s 206 as a base or pathway to 270.

    IF Trump wins FL; PA; and MI then he’s at 271 and in the White House. Everything else is icing on the cake.

    All things considered, Trump ran a pretty solid primary campaign; always remembering that he had to face 16 other candidates, both the MSM and the Conservative Inc. established media, and most of the GOP establishment. Considering how many fronts he had to fight vs just to get to this level speaks well of the man. Now it’s just him and Hillary, and as long as he does as you’ve outlined (the part about running a strong national campaign) then he should win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Truth says:

    “Fracking” wall?

    Is that a new development in geothermal engineering I’m unaware of?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances…

    I pretty much agree with you, but here’s a piece that gave me second thoughts. If the analysis is correct, Trump will win; Clinton lacks the judgment to avoid Trump’s trap.

    “Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap” – https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-walking-into-donald-trumps-trap/2016/05/04/1cbe2722-120a-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And finish the sentence: Hillary isn't a great campaigner, and she's learned nothing from Bill. Bill was a great campaigner and knew how to position himself on the popular issues in order to maintain an edge or gain some points in the polls.

    With Hillary its 'Screw all of you! I know what's right and I'm gonna do this my way! If you don't like it, then you can all get the hell out and go home! Cause I'm right!'

    The best Hillary can do is make Gun Control her main issue? And, largely due to Trump, she is now going to make Immigration the other issue of her campaign. Bill would't have been so stupid on the campaign trail. He'd have publicly supported the wall in various states that could wanted it, and then cut the best deal that would benefit his chances in the election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Let's try it again for those who can't grasp it:

    "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!"--Obama

    "THE HELL I DIDN'T, AND THERE IT IS!"--Trump

    There's Trump Tower; Trump Casino, Trump Golf Course, and if elected there will be Trump WALL. Because IF there isn't, he won't be a second term president. He's made constant and consistent reference to a L-I-T-E-R-A-L W-A-L-L, as in an actual wall that other civilizations have built (e.g. The Great Wall of China. Was that a "figurative" wall or a REAL wall?)

    He thinks literally, in terms of images, yes certainly but also literally. A LITERAL wall seals the deal and gets the job done. If the wall literally gets built, then Trump is re-elected. It's called, delivering on what you promised in the GE.


    The 2020 campaign ads LITERALLY write themselves, with a smiling Trump at the Southern Border in front of the completed wall, staring into the camera:

    "They laughed at the idea, said I was foolish, even crazy, and that I could't possibly be serious. Well, folks, behold the wall! There it is, right on the southern border, just like I promised! And, YEAH, WE DID BUILD THAT! You the people, built it by working hard to keep America safe. And NOW America is starting to be made great again! Thank you for your ability to build the wall that I wanted to build!"

    Thing about a literal wall is that its like, you know, literal. It's there, everyone can see it, no one can call you a liar, about failing to deliver. Cause there it is, right on the border, just like he promised he would deliver during the GE.

    Trump’s bias toward the tangible is a part of his appeal. Think Eisenhower: Interstate Highway System. I bet Trump thinks that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Excellent observation and I know he does. In one of the later debates that took place in the fall (November or sometime in early December) Trump made reference to Eisenhower's building or rebuilding of infrastructure. He clearly referenced Ike's policy that helped sustain the middle class boom, etc. The things that Trump does know, he mentioned and for a very good specific reason. And of course Eisenhower was one of the first presidents that Trump would vividly recall growing up in Queens. In fact, policies on infrastructure and "Operation Wetback" were both referenced by Trump during his various debates. Trump doesn't use words to impress a la "let's dispel/dispense fiction, etc" to show how smart he is up on stage with all those politicians. He doesn't need to; he's the most confident man in the room based on what he's literally built and achieved.

    But Trump referenced Ike for a specific reason: as in, 'That's an influence for me, policy wise and if it was good enough for Ike, who helped build US's infrastructure, then its good enough for me". Also, as a person who worked in the real estate business for decades, Trump has to be fairly well versed in various aspects of it, such as on infrastructure, etc.

    This is part of his personality, which is visual. He's built literal golf courses and a literal tower. And now a literal wall. That's not a chain-jerk, it's real. If he's elected, it's coming. Take that to the bank since he's invested so much into it and its literal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Brutusale says:
    @AnotherDad
    I skimmed it--what an annoying twerp.

    I swear "conservative" twerps like this are worse than their lefty counterparts. The young lefties are just the typical hotheads who think they know better than everyone at all of 30, and love the big state--and the chance to use it to mess with people. (A more or less accurate account of leftism.)

    Whereas this guys' moronic spew ... thinks he's a conservative and doesn't have any idea what conservative means. Just stupid and pathetic.

    He’s a comedian taking lunatic Glenn Beck’s coin. The first comment was from someone identifying themselves as “WalkInGoodness”.

    I leave these people to their own conservative-religious intellectual masturbation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Truth says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Let's try it again for those who can't grasp it:

    "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!"--Obama

    "THE HELL I DIDN'T, AND THERE IT IS!"--Trump

    There's Trump Tower; Trump Casino, Trump Golf Course, and if elected there will be Trump WALL. Because IF there isn't, he won't be a second term president. He's made constant and consistent reference to a L-I-T-E-R-A-L W-A-L-L, as in an actual wall that other civilizations have built (e.g. The Great Wall of China. Was that a "figurative" wall or a REAL wall?)

    He thinks literally, in terms of images, yes certainly but also literally. A LITERAL wall seals the deal and gets the job done. If the wall literally gets built, then Trump is re-elected. It's called, delivering on what you promised in the GE.


    The 2020 campaign ads LITERALLY write themselves, with a smiling Trump at the Southern Border in front of the completed wall, staring into the camera:

    "They laughed at the idea, said I was foolish, even crazy, and that I could't possibly be serious. Well, folks, behold the wall! There it is, right on the southern border, just like I promised! And, YEAH, WE DID BUILD THAT! You the people, built it by working hard to keep America safe. And NOW America is starting to be made great again! Thank you for your ability to build the wall that I wanted to build!"

    Thing about a literal wall is that its like, you know, literal. It's there, everyone can see it, no one can call you a liar, about failing to deliver. Cause there it is, right on the border, just like he promised he would deliver during the GE.

    “Read…My..Lips….”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    I'm reading TRUMP's WORDS. If you don't know the difference between GHWBush and Trump you're in for a rude awakening. Bush was a horrible campaigner who had no set of tangible goals. Show us where exactly either Bush ran on immigration and building a wall. You can't, cause that wasn't in their minds at the time.

    Trump has tied too much into the Wall. If its not built or at least halfway built by 2020, then he loses re-election. He wants to achieve something while in office, and building a wall is a literal achievement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Mr. Anon says:
    @anony-mouse
    '...Trump out-performed his polls by 2.6 points on average...'

    RCP has Clinton up by 6.5 points.

    That means four years of her.

    (Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump's chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. As someone who looks on the bright side of things I understand...)

    “(Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. ”

    And polls never change. Not ever. That’s why George Herbert Walker Bush was re-elected by a land-slide in 1992. His unassailable position in the polls in the summer of 1991 all but predicted his victory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Yes, just like Carter's lead in the polls throughout the spring into summer of 1980. And, Dukakis was elected president in 1988 after being way ahead in the polls throughout the summer. Polls never ever every change, nope nope nope. Tell yourself whatever you have to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Mr. Anon says:
    @AnotherDad
    I skimmed it--what an annoying twerp.

    I swear "conservative" twerps like this are worse than their lefty counterparts. The young lefties are just the typical hotheads who think they know better than everyone at all of 30, and love the big state--and the chance to use it to mess with people. (A more or less accurate account of leftism.)

    Whereas this guys' moronic spew ... thinks he's a conservative and doesn't have any idea what conservative means. Just stupid and pathetic.

    “I skimmed it–what an annoying twerp.”

    Agreed. Guys like Walsh talk about “conservative principles” – as if conservatism was a set of abstract principles. Conservatism means conserving your people and your nation, something which Conservatism Inc. has proved entirely incapable of doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Steve Sailer
    Trump's bias toward the tangible is a part of his appeal. Think Eisenhower: Interstate Highway System. I bet Trump thinks that way.

    Excellent observation and I know he does. In one of the later debates that took place in the fall (November or sometime in early December) Trump made reference to Eisenhower’s building or rebuilding of infrastructure. He clearly referenced Ike’s policy that helped sustain the middle class boom, etc. The things that Trump does know, he mentioned and for a very good specific reason. And of course Eisenhower was one of the first presidents that Trump would vividly recall growing up in Queens. In fact, policies on infrastructure and “Operation Wetback” were both referenced by Trump during his various debates. Trump doesn’t use words to impress a la “let’s dispel/dispense fiction, etc” to show how smart he is up on stage with all those politicians. He doesn’t need to; he’s the most confident man in the room based on what he’s literally built and achieved.

    But Trump referenced Ike for a specific reason: as in, ‘That’s an influence for me, policy wise and if it was good enough for Ike, who helped build US’s infrastructure, then its good enough for me”. Also, as a person who worked in the real estate business for decades, Trump has to be fairly well versed in various aspects of it, such as on infrastructure, etc.

    This is part of his personality, which is visual. He’s built literal golf courses and a literal tower. And now a literal wall. That’s not a chain-jerk, it’s real. If he’s elected, it’s coming. Take that to the bank since he’s invested so much into it and its literal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Mr. Anon
    "(Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances given that not a single head-to-head national poll has Trump in the lead. "

    And polls never change. Not ever. That's why George Herbert Walker Bush was re-elected by a land-slide in 1992. His unassailable position in the polls in the summer of 1991 all but predicted his victory.

    Yes, just like Carter’s lead in the polls throughout the spring into summer of 1980. And, Dukakis was elected president in 1988 after being way ahead in the polls throughout the summer. Polls never ever every change, nope nope nope. Tell yourself whatever you have to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Truth
    "Read...My..Lips...."

    I’m reading TRUMP’s WORDS. If you don’t know the difference between GHWBush and Trump you’re in for a rude awakening. Bush was a horrible campaigner who had no set of tangible goals. Show us where exactly either Bush ran on immigration and building a wall. You can’t, cause that wasn’t in their minds at the time.

    Trump has tied too much into the Wall. If its not built or at least halfway built by 2020, then he loses re-election. He wants to achieve something while in office, and building a wall is a literal achievement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Its fascinating to watch Trump supporters try to figure a way to be optimistic about Trump’s chances...
     
    I pretty much agree with you, but here's a piece that gave me second thoughts. If the analysis is correct, Trump will win; Clinton lacks the judgment to avoid Trump's trap.

    "Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-walking-into-donald-trumps-trap/2016/05/04/1cbe2722-120a-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

    And finish the sentence: Hillary isn’t a great campaigner, and she’s learned nothing from Bill. Bill was a great campaigner and knew how to position himself on the popular issues in order to maintain an edge or gain some points in the polls.

    With Hillary its ‘Screw all of you! I know what’s right and I’m gonna do this my way! If you don’t like it, then you can all get the hell out and go home! Cause I’m right!’

    The best Hillary can do is make Gun Control her main issue? And, largely due to Trump, she is now going to make Immigration the other issue of her campaign. Bill would’t have been so stupid on the campaign trail. He’d have publicly supported the wall in various states that could wanted it, and then cut the best deal that would benefit his chances in the election.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Reg Cæsar
    Gun control is going to win in the long run, because we're letting into this country tens of millions of people whom the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would never allow to be armed. I don't think most NRA members want them packing heat, either.

    The gun lobby will have to get off its holster and become the borders lobby, and real soon.

    That’s one specific reason they put in the 2nd amendment in the first place.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, …

    You wouldn’t say that the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution would sever allow the Indians to be armed, so therefore they wouldn’t want settlers on the frontier to be armed either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. anon says: • Disclaimer

    I don’t *think* I believe those conspiracy theories about Hillary’s henchmen hacking the voting machines to outperform her polls.

    But if I did, I’d figure they would have also hacked the GOP voting machines to make sure Trump outperformed his.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation