Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

More People Are Starting to Believe Trump Could Win

More People Are Starting to Believe Trump Could Win

“I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States.”

Through the spring and summer, many pundits and politicians dismissed Donald Trump’s campaign for president as a flash in the pan. Large crowds at his events were explained away by dissatisfaction with the establishment.

Now that his lead in the polls has held for so long, people are singing a different tune.

Howard Kurtz of FOX News:

The media establishment finally admits Trump could win this thing

I remember shaking my head, on the day that Donald Trump announced, when NPR’s Mara Liasson declared that this would be the best day of his campaign and it was downhill from there.

Liasson cheerfully admitted she was wrong on my show, but she had plenty of company. Most of the media establishment seemed to fall into two camps: those who were skeptical that Trump was anything more than a sideshow, and those who attacked him as a clown and a charlatan.

Fast-forward to this past weekend when Chris Wallace, having just interviewed Trump for “Fox News Sunday,” said: “I know all of us dismissed Trump, early on, all of the so-called experts.” But after their sitdown, Wallace said, “I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States.”

The so-called experts are starting to face reality. Joe Scarborough said yesterday that anyone who believes Trump can be stopped if he wins Iowa is “dreaming.”

Here’s the moment with Chris Wallace which Kurtz refers to above:

It’s not just media types who are starting to think this way. The Republican Party is coming to terms with the possibility as well.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner:

Panicked establishment gets ready for war against Trump

This weekend was an inflection point in the Republican presidential race — a moment in which some significant part of the GOP establishment came out of denial and realized Donald Trump might well become their party’s nominee.

“The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win,” noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. “I’ve heard that from everybody. I don’t hear anybody saying he can’t win the nomination anymore.”

That doesn’t mean Republicans have made their peace with a Trump victory. On the contrary — some are preparing to do whatever it takes to bring him down. Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party’s likely nominee.

Trump is still turning out huge crowds, too. Here’s a video from a campaign event in Anderson, South Carolina on Monday. Just look at the sea of iPhones at the beginning, all straining to catch a glimpse of the Donald.

He certainly has enthusiasm on his side.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Considering the outcome of the 2008 election, is it possible to say that anyone is unelectable?

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Tregonsee. | October 21, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    Barack Obama maybe had a low probability of winning the nomination, but there was nothing about him that made unelectable.

    The more improbable thing, or the most improbable thing in his career, was getting elected to the United States Senate in 2004. He had a lot of help, or a lot of breaks.

    The fix may have been in.

    Obama was being promoted nationally too (which also would have an effect on the Illinois Senate race)

    I mean he was given the Keynote speech at the Democratic convention in 2004.

    He may have been a “Frankenstein’s monster” created by the Clinton machine, intended to be a “sparring partner” for Hillary Clinton – someone who would get a lot of votes, and suck up much of the opposition, but who couldn’t win himself.

    Only he did.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | October 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm

      The Republican incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald, did not run for re-election, and Obama’s chief opponent in the Democratic primary, and also again in the general election, withdrew because of leaks about personal affairs. (and maybe somebody knew about all that before they became the main candidates)

      As I said once:

      Comment 209 here: http://patterico.com/2014/11/09/the-way-to-fix-the-system-we-need-to-outbid-the-special-interests/

      Barack Obama had to have 3 candidates give way in order to get elected to the United States Senate:

      1) Peter Fitzgerald, who did not have support from the Republican establishment – the Republican state committee declined to suppport him, and instead…

      2) Jack Ryan, whom, I must suspect somebody, but not any Republicans, knew had a secret weakness, became the nominee, and meanwhile…

      3) Blair Hull was pushed forward as a Democratic candidate – and he also had a secret weakness.

      Coincidence? Or a Klinton Konspiracy?

      but there was nothing about him that made unelectable.

      Well, sure, if you don’t count the legal requirements, like that “natural born citizen” thing. You may recall there was some excitement over that.

        forksdad in reply to tom swift. | October 21, 2015 at 2:08 pm

        Or being friends with terrorists or attending church with American hating racists or being raised by perverts and pornographers, or being a socialist or well you could play this game all day.

        He’s not our first Drug addicted president but I sure hope he’s our last.

casualobserver | October 21, 2015 at 8:46 am

Yeah, he COULD be elected. What isn’t clear to me is exactly how far the establishment operatives will go to derail him and when they will start to amp it up. You only have to watch what goes on in Congress right now to see that results take a back seat to power and control. And with Trump clearly not kowtowing to any one person or to the party as a whole, you know they will eventually get so distraught about the inability to control they will bring out the knives. Ted Cruz is probably in the same category to them. Not so much Rand Paul anymore.

    clafoutis in reply to casualobserver. | October 21, 2015 at 8:53 am

    Donald Trump had to understand the way the machine worked before he got involved.
    It’s what he’s done for a living all these years,

    He’s in this to win.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to clafoutis. | October 21, 2015 at 9:41 am

      He will have to do it without my vote.

      He is no conservative or lover of liberty. He is a corrupt Oligarch. I refuse to participate in this media fueled madness to get angry Republicans to chop of their own noses in order to spite the current face of the nation’s politival leadership.

        Well, that’s why the GOPe wants JEB in the race!

        A JEB vs Hillary election race would test many people; regarding which Oligarch to vote for!

          NC Mountain Girl in reply to Doug Wright. | October 21, 2015 at 10:28 am

          Where did I say I would vote for Jeb?

          Where did I say I would vote for Jeb?

          It’s part of their false dichotomy, the fallacy of the excluded middle.

          Anyone not all-in for Trump is a full-on pro-amnesty elitist RINO shill who loves Jeb!

          It’s not a very well-reasoned or sophisticated argument, but it’s apparently all they’ve got, so they’re sticking with it.

          Didn’t say that you meant that. Nor did I infer that either. Still, if the GOPe have their way, that might be the choice facing us and neither JEB nor Hillary would be good for the country.

          Still, either the people select the GOP nominee or the GOP will become history. That was my sole inference!

        casualobserver in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | October 21, 2015 at 12:36 pm

        If you abstain because your preferred candidate did not win the nomination, you have lost most of your right to complain about President Hillary CLinton.

          How many people began the cycle declaring they would “never vote for Jeb”??

          Seems some people enjoy apply double standards, eh?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to casualobserver. | October 21, 2015 at 8:47 pm

          Except that’s not why people abstain. I’m not a registered Republican, but I am a conservative. Why would I vote for a McCain or Romney?

          Y’all perhaps forget that among these three groups: registered Dems, registered GOPs, and independents, registered GOPs are last in number, the Dems second, and indies are the largest group – and growing. The GOPe’s great mistake is in believing that moving leftward and Offending No One will win them elections. Only Tea Party support – conservatives – have given the GOP any victories, almost entirely on the state-by-state level.

          We’re coming. You’re going. Fast.

      Ragspierre in reply to clafoutis. | October 21, 2015 at 11:03 am

      “Donald Trump had to understand the way the machine worked before he got involved.”

      Yes. He’s been swimming happily, profitably, and famously in that cess pool all his life. He DOES know how it works, and he’s worked it!

      The notion that he poses ANY peril to the “establishment” is ludicrous. He IS the Establishment! Should he become POTUS, he and all the other elements of that establishment will very quickly come to a rapprochement. It’s what they DO.

        “He IS the Establishment!”

        Delusional.

        I guess the establishment is so strongly supporting him because he is such an integral part…

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 12:13 pm

        No, poor Barry. He isn’t their boy. Jeb! is. T-rump is an interloper. But he’s NOT a threat to them. He IS them.

        He has a history, and you’re delusional if you ignore it.

        Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm

        In the “I was against it before I was for it theme”, Donnie Boy was a Democrat. He supported Hilary in 2008, he thinks eminent domain is a truly wonderful thing, the list goes on. Donald may be a bit contrarian Establishment member, but he is Establishment all the same.

        Sometimes I log in for the sole purpose of giving Ragspierre a thumbs up.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | October 21, 2015 at 7:38 pm

          Thank you, brother!

          platypus in reply to Milwaukee. | October 21, 2015 at 9:58 pm

          That will stop if one of his checks fails to clear.

          🙂

          You’re as delusional as Rags.

          TDS, there are a lot of twisted minds. So twisted they believe the establishment is supporting trump when the reality is just the opposite. Trump scares them. They cannot control him.

          You don’t have to like trump, or support trump, to know the “establishment” is out to get him. That they have failed, and will continue to fail, is not proof that trump is the establishment.

          Twisted. Completely twisted.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | October 22, 2015 at 8:54 am

          “So twisted they believe the establishment is supporting trump when the reality is just the opposite.”

          There was a time when your TDS had not screw up your reading.

          I expressly said that Jeb! is the Establishment’s entry in the sweepstakes, and they don’t like anyone coming in as the dark horse.

          But you are delusional if you cannot see that people in power are going to simply adjust to Mr. Establishment, and he to them, if he were POTUS. There is NO evidence to the contrary, and an entire lifetime of his swimming in that cess pool in support. It IS who he IS.

          Barry in reply to Milwaukee. | October 22, 2015 at 8:32 pm

          Rags, I’ve come to the conclusion you are either a fool or a liar, no idea which. If you cannot see that the establishment (political establishment) has the long knives out for trump, then you are blind. The reporting abounds. The establishment opines on just how they will do it with super pac money add campaigns.

          Perhaps you see it and just refuse to acknowledge it as it doesn’t fit your narrative.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | October 23, 2015 at 7:38 am

          Barry, you’ve turned yourself into an uncomprehending idiot.

          Apparently, you can’t read any more.

          Barry in reply to Milwaukee. | October 23, 2015 at 9:51 am

          And you will not acknowledge simple facts that are clear to anyone with a few functioning brain cells. You do not have to like trump to understand what is taking place. When you let your hatred of all things trump get in the way of reasonable analysis, your comments and work on behalf of your preferred candidate are greatly diminished.

          You must understand what is taking place before you can be of use to Mr. Cruz. I think he does understand. You do not.

          Trump is fighting todays war with todays weapons. And winning for now. You are fighting yesterdays war with yesterdays weapons. And losing. There is no value in this. If you want to help your candidate you will first have to recognize the truth.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to clafoutis. | October 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm

      You’ve got it Clafoutis!

The vote on the sanctuary cities bill in the Senate will most certainly improve Trump’s poll numbers. This is his signature issue. The bill needed to overcome a 60-vote threshold. It would have withheld certain federal funding from states or cities that refused to turn over immigrants who are in the country illegally. It was defeated 54-45. Lindsey Graham decided to not vote. This is looking more and more like it could turn into a one-issue election.

    tom swift in reply to gasper. | October 21, 2015 at 11:21 am

    This is looking more and more like it could turn into a one-issue election.

    It has been so far; ever since Trump started talking about The Question Which Must Not Be Asked.

    The fact that the rest of the Republican field failed to take it up as well means that, to a huge degree, Trump is the only runner in this race. The others are all still milling around the starting line, wondering which way to run.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to gasper. | October 21, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    This is looking more and more like it could turn into a one-issue election

    In that case, the Democrat probably wins.

    Actually, things are looking more and more like this will the only issue that matters in ALL federal elections for many years.

    More than abortion, more than the Vietnam war was.

    It’s like the slavery issue in the 1840’s and 1850’s. It will trump all other issues. We’re not yet at that stage, but we’re getting there. Once it becomes the main issue, it will never go away, until it’s resolved, and it can only be resolved one way.

      If the Democrat wins this election, then we can guess what follows: open borders, ID-free walk-in voter registration, Free Everything for Everybody courtesy of the Social Democratic Party … and a lock on all federal electoral offices in perpetuity.

      This plan gets stopped in 2016, or it doesn’t get stopped at all.

        But what happens if Trump is elected and fails to close the border?

          If Trump does win he could drag a lot of like-minded people into office with him. I think he has the potential to sway a good portion of Democrats to vote for him on this one issue of immigration. But they may be too stupid to elect others who are more likely to help him. They may well vote for Trump then vote solidly for liberal Democrat representatives who oppose immigration reform. Then Trump will be in office for four years without the ability to do the one thing he says he will do. And he will have to do all the other things that need to be done that voters didn’t consider.

          But what happens if Trump is elected and fails to close the border?

          Then the country will be … what was the phrase … “fundamentally transformed.”

          I never said Trump is a good candidate. I said he’s the only one even talking about an existential menace. Nobody else is even managing to do that much.

          Of course, even at best it’s just talk; he may not be sincere, and even if he is, he may not be capable of delivering.

          Ragspierre in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | October 21, 2015 at 8:26 pm

          Yah, no, tom. That’s complete bullshit.

          People have been talking about this for OVER a decade. Jonah Goldberg came out for a border barrier in 2006.

          Where do you morons get this shit?

          Jonah Goldberg ain’t running for office.

          The only one running for office with a clear message that a wall will get built and illegal immigration will be shut down is trump.

          To state otherwise is a lie.

          Ragspierre in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | October 22, 2015 at 9:01 am

          Those are two different things, however.

          You can do one without the other, and arguably SHOULD, as I’ve detailed here many times.

          AND, Barry, you’ve admitted you know T-rump has an amnesty program and you are OK with that.

          Other candidates are not.

          To suggest anything else is a lie. Innit?

          “AND, Barry, you’ve admitted you know T-rump has an amnesty program and you are OK with that.”

          Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the “admission” that you have misread, or perhaps I misworded.

          “Other candidates are not.”

          Which ones? By what statement or position?

          “To suggest anything else is a lie. Innit?”

          No. Answer the second question and will see if I am in error.

cantor4massat4 | October 21, 2015 at 9:08 am

I hope that he won’t be the candidate. The guy is a liberal and leads with his emotions. However, as Tregonsee commented, after 2008, and I will add, 2012, who knows? And Trump voted for Obama in 2012 after knowing what the heck he was. I can see the first time, but I simply cannot see how anyone voted for him the second time.

Anyone who thinks Trump or Bernie are the answer to America’s woes doesn’t understand the problem.

Henry Hawkins | October 21, 2015 at 9:57 am

I don’t see the point of holding the primaries or the general election now. I mean, it’s clearly over. Nobody ever led at this point of a presidential race and went on to lose. I defy anyone to identify any candidate who did in past races. It’s just never happened. Turn out the lights.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 9:59 am

    Well, Henry, do you think we’re seeing Trump strength or merely a vaccuum created by GOP weakness?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 10:04 am

      Shut up, asshole. President Trump will fix everything. You’ll see. Trump’s election will be the moment when the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins to heal; the moment when we end war and secure our nation and restore our image as the last, best hope on Earth. It will be the moment – it will be the time – when we come together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 10:41 am

    A lot of these polls are trying to move the narrative. Indeed, some of them are amazingly transparent about the efforts if one looks at the cross tabs.

    I particularly enjoyed a recent poll that stated it interviewed a handful over 1000 adults in Nevada and from that sample identified 275+ people who said they would participate in the Nevada Republican caucus. That caucus is closed to all except people who have registered as Republicans 30 days before the caucus. Historic turnout is something like 1.5%.

    Then there was the poll, again of a handful over 1000 adults, in South Carolina that claims to have identified something like 450 likely Republican primary voters. In 2012 the primary turnout in South Carolina was 16% of all registered voters. Assuming that 80% of adults in SC are registered to vote, 450 likely primary voters represents a about the same turnout percentage as the 2012 SC general election.

    The media has been giving Trump several times the coverage of any other candidate in the race and then trumpets polls it commissions showing Trump in the lead.

    People are being played.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | October 21, 2015 at 12:17 pm

      The most recent Washington Post poll was a nationwide sample of 1,001 adults. From that they say they identified 364 Republican-leaning registered voters. How many of them have an actual history of voting in primaries is anyone’s guess.

      Primary polling on the eve of an election is tricky. Four and five months out it only serves to push the narrative the media wants to push. And theu want the face of the Repubican party to be an old, rich, white man with a history of shady deals, a trophy wife and a record of saying bastt thubgs about women.

        242 were self-identified Republicans, the rest independent “leaners” but it is unclear how leanings were determined.

        In any case, the MOE is 5.5%, making the poll of dubious value. Certainly Trump leads, but when he gets ALL the press, what should we expect?

        People don’t understand they are being led to the slaughter by their blind celebrity worship.

      What is our justification for ignoring the thousands who show up to Trump speaking engagements across the country? For that matter, what about Bernie who is doing the same thing?

      The polls are matching the public behavior. What do we say to those who point out that fact?

Looks like all the chips are being laid in Iowa. Trump will get battered by negative ads there. Plus the remaining debates will also tell the tale. If he holds serve in Iowa, then he is positioned to win the nomination by March 15th. That’s a big “if.”

As long as Trump is the only candidate that will build wall and deport illegals then he is the only candidate worth voting for. All other talk about he isn’t a pure conservative is meaningless by comparison. There is no such thing as a conservative that won’t build wall and deport illegals. That is not conservative.

Trump 2016. Trump is 32% in ABC poll out today. Say it with me… “President Trump”.

    President Trump is at 27.2% today on the RCP averages.

    President Guiliani was on 28% on this date during the 2008 election cycle. President Cain was leading at 25% on this date during the 2012 election cycle, soon to be overtaken by President Gingrich on 35%.

      Giulliani had lead in national polls but never once had a lead in any State polls. So was not surprising he didn’t win Iowa and New Hampshire etc. Trump on the other hand has leads some very big in ALL state primary polls to go with his lead in national polls. So Giulliani comparisons are apples and oranges.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 12:09 pm

        Where do you get these talking-points, Britt?

        They aren’t yours. So post the Trump-humpers where you get this. Please.

          Fox News. I’m sure you could google up the verification that Fox News reports correctly on Giulliani and his polls.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 12:51 pm

          Nope. Post your links, liar. I’m calling bullshit.

          There WERE SOME state polls where Thompson or Romney were doing better. But not what you depict.

          Links, liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 2:07 pm

          Here, Britt, I can see you’re having trouble.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2008#Iowa

          You’ll find that Giuliani had a decisive lead in several states at points in time during the election cycle.

          Whoever fed you that bullshit you posted punked you, and you should go after them. AND apologize to all of us here.

          I’m afraid your link supports my statements. Giuliani never led in state polls for Iowa and New Hampshire so no surprise he didn’t win in those states and then lost all momentum in national polls after that. Name the poll and date of state poll where he was in the lead. I saw one at your link for 2007 in south carolina, but that was just one and he never led again after that poll.

          Trump has good leads in Iowa and New Hampshire unlike Giulliani that never had a lead of any kind. He lost those states and all momentum after that.

          So stop trying to mislead everyone here and open your eyes.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 2:59 pm

          Wow, lying liar, you make punking you SOOOOOO easy.

          In Iowa, Da Mayor led from December through February.

          In Illinois almost all year in 2007.

          In New Hampshire he led in several polls in January and February, and was within the margin of error in several others.

          You either can’t read or are lying. Again.

          This was your original bullshit claim…

          “Giulliani had lead in national polls but never once had a lead in any State polls.”

          Which is categorically FALSE!!!

          Now, you can apologize to everyone here for your FALSE statement.

          Rags at the link YOU provided. There are about 50 or so Iowa polls listed. Giulliani had the lead in ONE of them for July 25-27, 2007. He did not have the lead in any other poll either at that time or any other time in Iowa. Trump has had the lead in Iowa in EVERY POLL since he took the lead in national polls. Same facts are true in New Hampshire and other states. There is no time when Giuliani had a lead in state polls (that remains true even if there is one flyer poll out of 50 or so). That is not true about Trump. Same for New Hampshire and all the other states. So as I said Trump to Giuliani is apples and oranges.

          You need to learn to THINK.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 5:58 pm

        Since some of those links suffer from “link rot”…

        Strategic Vision (R) Mar 30 – April 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 20%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 15%

        University of Iowa (Likely Caucus Goers) Mar 19–31, 2007 John McCain 20.9%, Rudy Giuliani 20.3%, Mitt Romney 16.9%, Undecided 23.2%

        American Research Group Mar 23, 2007 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 29%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 11%

        Strategic Vision (note) Feb 16–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 22%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Chuck Hagel 5%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%

        Strategic Vision Political
        Margin of Error: +/- 4%
        Sample Size: 600
        January 19–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Mitt Romney 8%, Chuck Hagel 7%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 16%

        Zogby International
        Margin of Error: +/- 4.6%
        Sample Size: 465 likely caucus goers
        January 15–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 17%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Condoleezza Rice 9%, Mitt Romney 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 22%

        American Research Group Dec 19–23, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 18%, Chuck Hagel 6%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 14%

        We will accept you apology for your gob-smackingly FALSE assertion, Britt.

          Rags you ignorant slu*t

          1. Those polls weren’t listed at the link you provided. Out of 50 or so listed Giuliani had a lead in one that was not corroborated by any other poll.

          2. You cite polls from Jan through March or April 2007. Giuliani is not the leader in even most of those.

          3. Giuliani then fades by June and July in all state polls and never leads.

          4. Compare and contrast with Trump who has strong lead in EVERY state and national poll for 3+ months straight with no sign of abatement.

          The point I made was comparing Giuliani to Trump is comparing apples to oranges. That point remains quite true and quite correct.

          I’ll give you an apology when you find a second neuron to rub against the one you currently have.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 6:56 pm

          “Giulliani had lead in national polls but never once had a lead in any State polls.”

          The link I provided shows that you lied. Either because you were republishing a lie from some site that punked you, or because you just lied.

          You can’t get clearer proof than that which I’ve provided, yet you continue to lie and call me names, you lying SOS.

          Here endeth the lesson.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm

        “Giulliani had lead in national polls but never once had a lead in any State polls.”

        The link I provided shows that you lied. Either because you were republishing a lie from some site that punked you, or because you just lied.

        You can’t get clearer proof than that which I’ve provided, yet you continue to lie and call me names, you lying SOS.

        Here endeth the lesson.

          “Here endeth the lesson.”

          Here beginith the lesson. While you are technically correct, Giulliani lead a national poll in a state, the point that was being made is still correct: Giulliani, nor any other losing candidate, ever had the kind of lead that trump currently has in the early primary states. He leads in all of the February primary states (4), substantially. That could change, but direct comparisons to other national poll leaders that did not win are of little value. If trump goes on to win those states it’s all over.

          You keep saying Cruz is going to knock Trump off the map. Any prediction when we see this begin? Or how it is going to happen? With Cruz currently at very little support I’m not seeing how this is remotely possible. It appears to be a fantasy.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 22, 2015 at 8:26 am

          The gist of your “lesson” is that T-rump has already achieved inevitability.

          It appears to be a fantasy.

          Or, like Cruz being the eventual nominee, a possible outcome with actual paths to realization.

          We’ll see…

          “The gist of your “lesson” is that T-rump has already achieved inevitability.”

          Not true at all. I never said anything remotely like that. What I said is “If trump goes on to win those states it’s all over.”, regarding the first four primaries. I did not say he would win the first four.

          What I am doing is correcting the misinformation spewed the TDS sufferers. That’s all.

          I would prefer to see Cruz as the nominee, even though it is not clear to me he can do what I want to see done. But I do not see the path or possibility at this point, thus the question.

          Apparently it just your hope.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 23, 2015 at 6:31 am

          http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-ted-cruz-ted-cruz/

          Informed opinion. And, yeah, hope. I would love to see a true conservative as POTUS, instead of another fraudster and walking pathology.

          “Informed opinion.”

          Yes, there is lots of that. OTOH, is it valuable? Are they fighting an old war with old weapons?

          For example, at the end of the article:
          “He still hasn’t addressed the No. 1 reason I thought his campaign would have trouble: support from the party actors. In campaigns since 1980, no candidate hated by the establishment has won.”

          Now, regardless of the fact that you insist trump is part of the establishment (note, part of the political establishment) he is not, and he is winning. He (trump) is not supported by the very actors Mr. Enten is concerned about. Mr. Enten is fighting an old war with old weapons.

          For Mr. Cruz to win, he would need to adapt to the new war fought with new weapons. The R establishment is losing its grip, slowly but surely, for a variety of reasons. Recognizing this is a start. There is a reason two outsiders dominate the R polling. And insisting either one is an “insider”, “establishment”, etc will not further the cause. All those people YOU call idiots still get to vote, And they are showing support for the people they consider to be the outsiders. Cruz may be an outsider to some degree, but has been unable to differentiate himself from the garden variety politician. Thus support in the under 10% category. It is not going to change until Cruz makes a change. If every candidate but the first 5 drop out, do you really think Cruz is going to pick up all that support? And what if he does, half is now going to two candidates. It is not a recipe for winning.

          An example of Mr. Entens denial of reality:
          “The Republican establishment has (so far) not rallied around a candidate…”
          The republican establishment had rallied around a candidate early on. He just got thumped. They continue to search for a way to resurrect him and it would now appear they have moved on.

          “, …and that may leave a little more room for the grassroots to influence the nominating process.”
          You think? Is there any possibility the “grassroots” have already influenced this process? 50% of the R support goes to two candidates not even on the R radar a year ago.

          I would suggest you consider carefully the sources you read. Cheerleading will not be particularly useful. When I played HS football on a very successful team, I noticed near the end of the game that the other teams cheerleaders were still going strong despite the 30 point differential.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 23, 2015 at 11:13 am

          “For Mr. Cruz to win, he would need to adapt to the new war fought with new weapons.”

          Which he’s done in Texas.

          Watch and see.

          I read all kinds of sources, and I take what I will from them after critically thinking about them.

          This is how I know that T-rump is a danger to the republic.

          “Which he’s done in Texas.”

          Texas is a different environment than the national one. Do not confuse the two.

          You are entitled to your belief about trump. True or not, it has no bearing on the analysis about the national election and it is effecting your “critically thinking” skills.

          “Watch and see”
          Not a recipe for winning.
          When do you expect we will “see” a change? By what metric do you see this? I see none. As in zero, based upon the new political paradigm. Correct me if I’m wrong. “Strong principled conservative” is not going to do it.

      New poll by ABC News/Washington Post: TRUMP 32 CARSON 22 RUBIO 10 BUSH 7.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Steve Green…a conservative, so you won’t know him…wrote just today…

    “Notably,” it’s fair to say, that Trump does best with those least likely to cast a primary vote.

    Pardon my language, but this ABC News/Washington Post poll is horseshit. Forget trying to whittle the set down to likely primary voters — ABC/WaPo stuffed the ballot box with anyone who might be considered even marginally Republican.

    http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/10/21/about-that-big-trump-lead/

    And you have disqualified yourself to pronounce on anything “conservative” being the admitted Deemocrat voter you declared just the other day. Well, along with all your other Collectivist bullshit.

      Rags you ignorant slu*t.

      Steve is just whistling past the grave yard. Also stevie criticuzes Trump for being a more electable general election candidate by pulling support from otherwise democrat voters. You and old Stevie could have made the same complaint about polls and Reagan’s ability to pull votes from the Reagan democrats.

      I’ve never voted for a democrat in my life. But you think making up bullsh*t and repeating it is somehow persuasive argumentation.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 11:26 am

        Gary Britt | October 18, 2015 at 10:56 pm

        I would vote for Trump if he were running as a democrat and I have never voted for democrat for president in my life. So I could not care less about whether he was ever a registered democrat or not.

          Rags you ignorant slu*t.

          That statement clearly says I have never been a demicrat voter. It also says I unlike you have a mind and have grown tired of voting for pols labeled republican that go to DC and help enable democrats. So if somebody has the right polucies I don’t care what their label is. Because the republican label has often come to just mean demicrat lite.

          Grow up rags.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 11:50 am

          Gary, you said it. Several times. I can post each of them for you.

          I never lie. You do. Constantly.

          You ALSO said this election was not about principled conservatism. (Which, for you, is entirely true!)

          You wanna lie about that, too?

          Rags you ignorant slu*t

          Yes post all of them because you are not connected to reality if you think there are any to post.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 12:36 pm

          Gary Britt | October 18, 2015 at 10:50 pm

          I would vote for Trump if he were running as a democrat and I have never voted for democrat for president in my life. So I could not care less about whether he was ever a registered democrat or not.

          So…

          Like I said, you are a self-declared Deemocrat voter.

          And a demonstrated liar.

          If you keep calling me a “slut”, I will start screwing you in your eye-sockets. Fair is fair, right, you cowardly lying SOS?

          ewww more threats of violence. So where are all the many other posts you claimed you could post??? There aren’t any. Get a grip and try to stay in touch with reality rags.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 11:32 am

        “Steve is just whistling past the grave yard.”

        Really? By pointing out the bogus sample the ABC poll used?

        No, liar, “whistling past the grave yard” would be YOU, supporting an obviously biased sample because it gives you tingles up your lying leg. Which is attached to your lying head. That lies.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 11:09 am

    Talk is cheap and so far all we have from Trump is talk. In many cases his part actions are at odds with his current talk.

      All we have from any candidate is talk. Trump’s talk however is the only one who will build wall and deport illegals and at this time NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 11:28 am

        That of course is a lie, and you’re a liar.

        Cruz has done a LOT more than talk. Plus, there isn’t a queer track-record of playing all over the political map as there is with Duh Donald.

        Is there, liar?

          I agree regarding Cruz, and the GOPe knows it. The knives are slowly coming out for him: this week it is “I sure find him off-putting and personally unlikeable.”

          Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 3:44 pm

          Careful how you antagonize these folks, Rags.

          You don’t really think they intend to stop the “rounding up” with the Messicans, do you?

      “The media establishment finally admits Trump could win this thing

      The media establishment WANTS Trump to win the (primary) nomination because he will serve the presidency to Hillary.

      This unprincipled, foul mouthed, autocratic oligarch and crony capitalist will not only validate the Left’s caricature of Republicans but will help promote Hillary as the fairer and better Statist by contrast.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Gary Britt. | October 21, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Trump is 32% in ABC poll out today. Say it with me… “President Trump”.

    What is the percent of people who will NEVER vote for Trump?

    He’s got twice as many people against him as for him. He’s almost nobody’s second choice.

    I don’t know why people are only looking at the first choicet that comes to mind, especially when the first choice is only faint inclination and the average Republican polled is considering 6 candidates.

      Your comment is not correct. Trumps favoribility has improved a lot, the percentage who say they wouldn’t vote trump has decreased markedly and morning consult poll has Trump over 50% when combining his first and second choice votes.

      Maybe he’s so low as a second choice because most don’t expect him NOT to be the nominee. Just because you don’t care for a particular candidate doesn’t mean you also think he/she can’t win.

      The results of these polls are subjective. The size of the crowds at his engagements/rallies/townhalls is objective.

        Ragspierre in reply to platypus. | October 22, 2015 at 8:34 am

        His bigger crowds are a pretty middling Sanders draw. Which is disturbing any way you cut it.

        The last Quinnipiac poll on favorable/unfavorable/undecided showed T-rump had the highest unfavorables of any candidate INCLUDING Hellary, with almost no “undecideds” for either to harvest.

Would the GOP Establishment rather lose 2016 than see Trump elected?

We will find out.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Oh, you can count on “the establishment” and Duh Donald becoming quite cozy if he wins the nomination. He is Mr. Establishment, after all, and they ALLLL know how the game is played.

    There’s nothing in his past that would say otherwise unless you are delusional.

    I fear the answer is yes. They seemed to feel the same way in 1980 when the establishment wanted Bush over Reagan.

    If Trumpservatives are so concerned about a GOP Establishment conspiracy…then why are they actively promoting a candidate who has been a patron of the Democrat Establishment?

    How can anyone gloss over his contributions to Charles Rangel and Harry Reid?

    Don’t give me that “well, he has to buy favors to stay in business” because there are millions of principled Conservative business owners who don’t do that.

When I was in my early twenties in the mid 1970s a friend of mine from our home state of Michigan discharged from the USMC and set up in California for a year, fell in love, and brought his bride-to-be back to Michigan. We were happy for him – until we met his intended bride. Within a month our buddy was the only guy in the area who wasn’t sleeping with her, plus she had a serious and obvious drug problem. My father, a Detroit cop and surrogate dad to my buddy, ran her name and discovered numerous petty criminal convictions in CA, OR, and WA, all drug-related. Clearly, our buddy was about to blindly step off a cliff. We tried to warn him, but he was in love, blinded by it, and went ahead and married her. Before the first year was up, his savings were gone, she’d pocketed all the money he gave her to pay bills, intercepting shut-off letters, and when she could no longer hide her shenannigans, she took off with her drug dealer back to California, breaking our boy’s heart.

Draw your own conclusions as to why I post this, lol.

    “Draw your own conclusions as to why I post this, lol.”

    Because you suffer from TDS.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 21, 2015 at 12:25 pm

      Gullible idiots had some excuse for voting for Obama in 2008. He was a blank slate.

      T-rump has a LONNNNNNNNG and very ugly history. If you ignore it, YOU are suffering TDS.

      You don’t even have the fig-leaf 2008 Obama voters had.

        “Gullible idiots had some excuse for voting for Obama in 2008. He was a blank slate.”

        That is not an excuse as he was not a “blank slate”. If you believe that you were delusional back then as well.

        You need to check your temperature. TDS is a disease.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 22, 2015 at 8:42 am

          Your own TDS is a raging malady, dude.

          I did not say ANYTHING to suggest that I considered Barracula a blank slate.

          The term “gullible idiots” SHOULD have been a clue. And there were those who had more of an excuse to be snookered by Obama than those who are chumped by Trump!

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 22, 2015 at 8:41 pm

          “He was a blank slate.”

          Your words, not mine. I’ll assume you meant it as you explained, a “blank slate” for the gullible only.

    tom swift in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Draw your own conclusions as to why I post this, lol.

    Somebody offered you some sound advice up above … let me see if I can find it …

    Oh, here it is:

    Shut up, asshole.

    I wouldn’t have been so rude about it, even when talking to myself, but the idea seems sound enough.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to tom swift. | October 21, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      Professor! Professor! A total stranger on the internet called me an asshole! Ban him! Ban him!

      Any poster is welcome to call me an asshole – I called myself one above – but I politely ask they include a reason for me to give a shit.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 3:11 pm

        Henry, what’s that saying about what it means when you’re receiving flak?

        lol

        tom swift in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 8:18 pm

        That was a quote. From one of your posts, here on this very page.

        Are you psychotic, or is it just an act?

          Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | October 21, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          Poor tom. You’re so clueless.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to tom swift. | October 21, 2015 at 8:31 pm

          Tom Not-So-Swift: “That was a quote. From one of your posts, here on this very page. Are you psychotic, or is it just an act?”

          Henry, in the exact post Tom responds to:

          “Any poster is welcome to call me an asshole – I called myself one above – but I politely ask they include a reason for me to give a shit.”

          If it is your intent to make yourself look like a fool, you may now rest and enjoy your unqualified success.

    ElStegosaur in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    “I wish they all could be California, giiirrrllllssss”

Sammy Finkelman | October 21, 2015 at 12:25 pm

Former President George W. Bush has now tried to warn Republicans against Ted Cruz: (because he knew him personally, since Cruz had worked in his 2000 Presidential campaign)

New York Times Op-ed column by Frank Bruni:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/opinion/the-scary-specter-of-ted-cruz.html?_r=0

According to a report in Politico on Monday, Bush used his unscripted remarks at a fund-raiser for his brother Jeb over the weekend to make clear that among Jeb’s rivals for the Republican nomination, one in particular rubs him the wrong way.

He described Cruz as cynically opportunistic and self-serving. And this assessment was so starkly at odds with Bush’s anodyne, even warm, remarks about other Republican presidential candidates that listeners were stunned, wrote Politico’s Eli Stokols.

Bush reportedly summed up his sentiments about Cruz, who worked as a policy adviser on Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, with this blunt declaration: “I just don’t like the guy.”

Sammy Finkelman | October 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm

You know what is really bad?

What Obama is doing.

He’s not a principled humanitarian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-refugees-at-our-door.html

IN the past 15 months, at the request of President Obama, Mexico has carried out a ferocious crackdown on refugees fleeing violence in Central America. The United States has given Mexico tens of millions of dollars for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 to stop these migrants from reaching the United States border to claim asylum.

Essentially the United States has outsourced a refugee problem to Mexico that is similar to the refugee crisis now roiling Europe.

“The U.S. government is sponsoring the hunting of migrants in Mexico to prevent them from reaching the U.S.,” says Christopher Galeano, who spent last summer researching what’s happening in Mexico for human rights groups there. “It is forcing them to go back to El Salvador, Honduras, to their deaths.”

his sis the same Obama Administration that reduced money being sent to Mexico to fight drug gangs because they don’t think the way they are doing it is consistent with human rights.

But when it comes to would-be migrants – who would present themselves at the border and ask for asylum * – anything goes.

* The asylum hearing process has completely broken down. In the summer, people were being given court dates after Thanksgiving of 2019.

Perhaps this meme will grow legs?

‘Biden backed out because didn’t want to be crushed by Trump in the general election.’

Oh gee whiz, the Trumpophobes are having a bad day… again.

Why not go to the movies to take your mind off it? I hear the new GOPe blockbuster “Honey I Shrank the Fiorina” is hilarious. 🙂

All the Amnesty Shill candidates are getting their hindquarters kicked. If that doesn’t make you happy, you are not a conservative, no matter how many times you click your heels and pretend to be one. Trying to redefine Amnesty using the New York Times doesn’t even pass the sniff test and won’t work.

The irony of getting everyone’s pledge to support the party nominee at the first debate is rich. Some of the very people howling about Trump’s unwillingness to back the party nominee are now realizing it might be Trump himself and are making threats to stay home to beat him in the general. Meanwhile they presume to lecture us about Trump not being a Republican, with more egg on their faces than were on the Breakfast Special.

It ain’t over till it’s over and it’s surely not over yet. But it certainly is another bad day for the Trumpophobes.

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Oh gee whiz, the phony Cruz supporter is here today to earn his TrumpBucks… again.

    I don’t recall anybody saying that Duh Donald couldn’t be a Repubician. All that takes is saying you are one.

    Colin Powell is a Republican. Last I checked, Bloomberg was a Republican (though that could’ve changed). T-rump’s been one SEVERAL TIMES. Like his being married.

    While you can BE a Republican by saying you are, you can’t be a conservative by making the claim…especially against all your history. MORE especially against your current positions.

    No matter how hard your paid apologists spin…

      Having a bad day aren’t ya? Check out that movie; you’ll still be a substance-free liar but less grumpy.

        Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        Anyone can read my post and find the substance, liar.

        If you can refute anything I said rationally, give it try.

        How much are you paid, BTW…???

Look how much passion Trump generates. 70 plus comments in 4 or 5 hours. Love him or hate him, The Donald delivers great ratings and is terrific clickbait.

    Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 21, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Yes. The very celebrity candidate that Breitbart warned us about.

      Is that a fact, eh?

      Breitbart.com:

      It erases no other strength or weakness of Trump to say that he enters the race as a celebrity, at an early moment when name recognition matters more than almost anything else.

      For better or worse (okay, make that better and worse) Jeb Bush has a touch of star power due to his last name. None of the other major candidates has anything like it, because Republicans can’t turn politicians into mass-media celebrities the way Democrats can. The machinery simply does not exist.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 2:40 pm

        But, poor Crazy Cat Lady (sans cats), that IS NOT Breitbart.

        Is it?

        I was citing to THE MAN. Not the poor shadow of the man his acolytes have become.

        Breitbart did not like T-rump. Look. It. Up.

          My Sun Conure would call you a liar for your unfactual name calling, T-Phobe.

          Admittedly, Trump is polarizing and there are those who hate Trump on the right. Most of them, including Michelle Malkin, have stopped their knee jerk daily attacks on him. Guess why?

          They are smarter than you, dear.

          Additionally, no one can say what Andrew Breitbart (whom I have had twitter conversations with before he passed away) would say about Trump the candidate today, October 21, 2015, in view of the current state of affairs and how this election cycle is developing.

          Reiterating Rags’ point, but with cites so you can check for yourself:

          Of course he’s not a conservative. He was for Nancy Pelosi before he was against Nancy Pelosi,” Breitbart joked during a 2011 appearance on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor.

          The conservative icon (who died in 2012 of heart failure) went on to presciently warn that a “celebrity candidate” could win the nomination if conservatives weren’t careful. “Celebrity is everything in this country,” he said. “And if these guys don’t learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we’re going to probably get a celebrity candidate.”

          And here: When Andrew Breitbart Said Trump Is Definitely Not A Conservative

          Breitbart would cringe at what his eponymous website looks like today. It’s become a sad joke.

          No one can say what Andrew Breitbat’s reaction would be to the 2016 candidate Trump.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 22, 2015 at 2:39 am

          Some of you people have a sickness that is hard to explain. It’s amazing how much time you spend trying to convince people of your point of view in such insulting ways. Researching articles, providing links, quoting hostile bloggers, using Twitter accounts to just pound away – as though those things were going to change someone’s point of view. A little bit is fine but some of you put out such volume it looks like you spend every waking hour on it and that is just nuts. It’s incredibly juvenile from individuals who think they are so smart.

          This is not bloodsport. It’s not I win You lose. People are expressing opinions – some right, some not right. Nothing wrong with that. No need to hammer away day after day.

          I like when some of you try to project what the candidates will do or won’t do. Or what bloggers will say or won’t say. As though you were standing right next to them. It’s all nonsense. Keyboard courage from small minded people who have lost their grip. I’m sure the usual suspects will have a field day with this comment.

          It’s amazing how much time you spend trying to convince people of your point of view in such insulting ways.

          Facts are insulting now?

          Researching articles,

          Reading a wide variety of sources is a bad thing?

          providing links,

          Instead of just providing naked assertions, so that you can check for yourself and see that I’m not just makin’ stuff up? You find this insulting?

          quoting hostile bloggers,

          Andrew Breitbart, the Andrew Breitbart, is now a hostile blogger, just because he wasn’t taken in by His Trumpiness?

          using Twitter accounts to just pound away

          Click on my screen name here & check it out. Pound, pound, pound! Exactly five of my tweets/retweets from the last 30 days mention Donald Trump.

          Seriously. You guys are insane.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 3:06 pm

        “Of course he’s not a conservative. He was for Nancy Pelosi before he was against Nancy Pelosi,” Breitbart joked during a 2011 appearance on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor.

        The conservative icon (who died in 2012 of heart failure) went on to presciently warn that a “celebrity candidate” could win the nomination if conservatives weren’t careful. “Celebrity is everything in this country,” he said. “And if these guys don’t learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we’re going to probably get a celebrity candidate.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 21, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    So do the Kardashians. Your point?

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/257354-trump-is-like-reagan-and-the-media-is-clueless-about-it

In fact, most candidates who were in first place the summer before an election year went on to be the nominee. Luckily, Politico is not a website primarily concerned with politics or it might have known this.

Among them: Ronald Reagan in August 1979, Walter Mondale in August 1983, Michael Dukakis (tied for first) in August 1987, Bob Dole in August 1995; George W. Bush in August 1999 and Mitt Romney in August 2011.

The years when the nominee wasn’t ahead the summer before an election are the outliers, explained by unique circumstances: President George H.W. Bush’s formidable Iraq War poll numbers in the summer of 1991; the GOP electorate going mad in 2007; and, that same year, the Democrats not working up the nerve to tell feminists that Hillary Clinton wasn’t going to be the nominee.

Not only is Trump’s total domination of the polls significant — not to be confused with “insignificant” — but his supporters’ intensity is also consequential. Intense voters man phone banks and talk fence-sitters into voting for their guy.

    …his supporters’ intensity is also consequential. Intense voters man phone banks and talk fence-sitters into voting for their guy.

    Ron Paul supporters were nothing if not “intense.”

    Also, insane. But they were intense in their insanity!

    And if you think the way all y’all Trumpeteers comport yourselves is going to talk fence-sitters into voting for your guy, you might want to reconsider that. All you’ve got so far is a hundred slightly different profanity-flecked variations of SHUT UP RINO! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! UNHH! NO JEB!

    That’s the kind of intensity sane people cautiously back away from, not run to embrace.

Meanwhile… Trump is accelerating in favorability in the polls.

Trumpophobics are potentially in for a Trump Presidency as it stacks up today.

VotingFemale | October 20, 2015 at 5:06 pm

Trump is now a conservative and Palin and Cruz are in cahoots with him and him, them. Bush family knows it and now we know they know it.

This Conservative triad is their worst of the worst nightmares imaginable.

After the 2016 election is done and a new president is in power, books will be written about it.

This is so far above your head you can’t process it.

Ragspierre | October 20, 2015 at 5:39 pm

Wow! THAT’S totally insane…!!!

Since I have you…(heh!)…why don’t you link to something from the period right after 9/11 saying you thought it was all W’s fault and he should resign. Any time within that year would be swell.

Then, you can tell us all about that hallucination…er…theory you have where Cruz, Duh Donanld, and Palin are working together.

Please… Just lie back on the couch and tell us all about it…

    Thank you for cross-posting those two comments!

    Since I like to keep you running in circles, I double up on it today.

    Remember the “Mega-Troll: Sarah Palin…” LI article?

    No? Yes?

    Sarah signals support for Trump…

    This is like taking candy from a man-baby.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm

      Yes, dear. You get “signals” from your fillings in your teeth.

      (WOWZER…!!!)

      Poor old crazy moonbat…

        Like I said… all you got is foaming at the mouth name calling now. Just can not accept the obvious… Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump (and Mark Levin & Rush Limbaugh) are in cahoots to put an anti-RINO anti-Obama in the White House.

        Poor ole T-Phobe… hugs

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 5:35 pm

        Here’s a prediction, that if it comes to pass, you can apologize to me for…

        Cruz will take T-rump down. (See the period?)

          I back Cruz supporters and I back Trump supporters …just like yesterday and just like I will tomorrow, barring any election oppo surprises that actually derails either campaign.

I think that almost all the former Paulites are now Trumpsters. The same childish fanaticism, naivete, and burn-it-down anger. And if Trump doesn’t win the nomination, they vow to stay home. It’s more of a psychosis than a fan base. And all this before we’ve had one single primary.

    I dunno ’bout dat, Murphy.

    Seems to me the T-Phobes are exhibiting “childish fanaticism, naivete, and burn-it-down anger.”

    Obviously your mileage varies from mine.

    Historically, I, for one, have absolutely zero use for Ron Paul or Rand Paul and neither one of them could ever get elected with their libertarian brand of extremism.

    I’m a Sarah Palin brand of “fanaticism.”

For the head T-Phobe and his T-Phobish friends…

Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin headlined rally against Iran deal

Two is company and three is a crowd.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Yeah, Crazy, they shared a common cause.

    AND while they were sharing a common dais, did Palin or Cruz say ANYTHING that endorsed Duh Donald for POTUS?

    See? Different things, unconnected in reality.

    You remember reality, right?

Gee, who else teamed up that day in Washington DC?

Well, let’s see… Mark Levin was there too.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/palin-trump-cruz.jpg

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    http://therightscoop.com/levin-rips-donald-trump-to-shreds/

    See? No? Confirmation bias working overtime?

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      I don’t really want to break up a good LI poster fight but two things. One, Levin has recently been very complimentary of Trump – even had him on his show. And Two..where the hell did you get a 4 year old article?

        Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm

        Who hasn’t been invited to Levin’s show?

        Levin has said some favorable things that a VERY qualified, like his comments on the NOT T-rump tax plan (while endorsing a Flat or Fair Tax plan more).

        I haven’t heard him endorse Duh Donald. You?

        Levin MAY have changed his views on the fraud that is T-rump.

        I haven’t.

        Do you question the validity of the comments Levin made?

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 7:39 pm

          He was very nice to Trump..loved his immigration plan ..loved his tax plan. Levin wanted to add his own touch to it which is fine. He seemed very positive towards The Donald. People change their minds Rags. There are a lot of gale force winds headed in Trump’s direction but I don’t think Levin is one of them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 8:05 pm

          According to the transcripts I’ve read WRT the NOT T-rump tax plan, he prefers mine.

          Did he get into the legality and morality of a “remissions embargo” respecting the T-rump “wall”? I’ll bet he didn’t.

          IF he had, I’d hope that the Mark Levin that I admire would find it reprehensible and impossible.

        PhillyGuy, seems Rags is in the camp that ascribes to:

        ‘Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts; My Mind Is Made Up’

        His assumption-based POV is falling apart day by day.

          PhillyGuy in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 7:50 pm

          Just be careful getting so happy about what is happening. The big guns have yet to be fired in Trump’s direction and it is not going to be pretty. Millions and millions of dollars are going to be spent against him and that will have an impact. Rags may very well see Cruz get in although I still think it is more likely Rubio or Bush than Cruz.

          I am watching and taking it all in. I see a traditional path to victory here but the money has not been spent yet. How does Trump react when 3 different candidates spend money hammering him?

          PhillyGuy,

          All good points, in my view.

          Trump has significent armor & if we are to believe him, he will see their millions and raise them a billion. I think they know he has celiberty status on par with the biggest names in the civilized world.

          I’m not saying what else he has working in his favor but none of his RINO opponents have anything quite like the arrows in his quiver.

        Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 21, 2015 at 7:11 pm

        But, Crazy, that’s simply a set of lies.

        Deal with my questions, or admit you can’t.

      Uh… T-Phobe? A four year old article is all you got?

      “Levin rips Donald Trump to shreds
      Posted by The Right Scoop on Apr 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM in Politics | 148 Comments ”

      Thangs change in four years, silly man.

      How about a recent article from The Right Scoop on Levin’s Assessment of Donald Trump? Say… Sept 14, 2015?


      Mark Levin explains the Donald Trump phenomenon…like nobody else
      Posted by The Right Scoop on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:57 PM in Politics

      Mark Levin opened his show explaining the Donald Trump phenomenon and it was really good. Along the way he also made some great points about the phony conservatives whining about Trump now when they were totally ok with the corrupt Republican Establishment leaders we have in Congress.

      For a radio recording of Levin’s discussion on Trump, go here:

      http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-the-donald-trump-phenomenon-like-nobody-else/

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 6:54 pm

        “Thangs change in four years, silly man.”

        Really? Truth changes with time?

        Which of Levin’s observations was a lie back four years ago, and how has anything changed, Crazy?

          Look… go on making wild statements that can be easily smacked down like I just did. K?

          Or, you could take off your blinders and setting aside your narrow mindedness and really check on what Levin is up to with regards to Trump’s candidacy.

          BTW, did it ever occur to you that Levin likely had a hand in crafting Trump’s Immigration Plan?

          Watch: This Controversial Trump Plan Has Mark Levin Calling Donald’s Critics ‘Dead Wrong’

          http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-this-controversial-trump-plan-has-mark-levin-calling-donalds-critics-dead-wrong/

          On the Fox News show Hannity Wednesday night, radio host, author, lawyer, and constitutional scholar Mark Levin weighed in on the issue that’s now a hot topic in the GOP presidential race.

          Fox New reported Levin “said that those claiming that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong, pointing to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

          “If you want a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution. We don’t have to amend the Constitution. It says what we say it says,” Levin forcefully argued. “The Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens.”

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 7:07 pm

          You failed to answer my questions.

          Though you DID deflect with a totally crazy non-sequitur…

          Poor old T-Phobe… just can’t catch a break today.

          Have a cookie, dear.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 7:14 pm

          You just surrendered, poor old Crazy Cat Lady (sans cats).

          You go eat some kittie bits.

          OR you could attempt to answer my questions. Which we all see you’re having one helluva time with…

          blah blah blah… goes the T-Phobe without a shred of citation Levin opposes Trump’s 2016 candidacy.

        Thangs change in four years, silly man.

        Okay, four years is just way too far back . Nothing any candidate did or said, and nothing anyone said about a candidate, counts if it happened more than 6 months ago.

        Now, are you going to apply this Year Zero effect to all candidates, or is The Donald the only one who needs to be protected in this way?

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | October 21, 2015 at 8:21 pm

          Rubio would come out of the baptismal waters clean as a newborn babe!

          Fiorina would be an applicant for sainthood!

          Hell, even the Jeb! would be acceptable in mixed company!

          You just can’t make this shit up!

Lie, lie, lie…goes the Crazy Cat Lady, without an answer to any of the questions posed to her.

We know that Levin was adamantly opposed to the fraud T-rump.

We KNOW he has not endorsed him this cycle.

What did Levin say about the fraud four years ago that was a lie, Crazy?

You are the one contending Levin opposes Trump’s 2016 candidacy, not me, T-Phobe.

Put up citations or shut up and stop making an even bigger fool of yourself, dear. ‘Your public’ is cringing.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 7:51 pm

    No. You lie again. I never made any such assertion.

    I’ve asked a series of questions. You cannot deal with them.

    Everyone can see it.

      You flat out lied saying Levin has not had Trump on his show.

      You were building a case by citing a 4 year old article at The Right Scoop that Levin rejects Trump.

      So now you agree that Levin does not oppose Trump’s 2016 candidacy?

      Jeez T-Phobe… get a grip, dear.

      Oh… and on that assertion Trump has not been on Levin’s Show? That was bullcrap.

      Mark Levin Interviews Donald Trump: “On The Issues… What Does Being Conservative Mean To You?”

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/14/mark_levin_interviews_donald_trump_on_the_issues.html

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 8:10 pm

        “You flat out lied saying Levin has not had Trump on his show.”

        You’ve gone into a full psychotic break now, Crazy. I never said any such thing.

        Levin has had most…if not all…the GOP candidates on his show, and he’s invited pretty much all of them.

        Either post a link to my comment, or admit you just slipped the surely bonds of sanity.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 21, 2015 at 8:14 pm

        “You were building a case by citing a 4 year old article at The Right Scoop that Levin rejects Trump.”

        No. That’s another flat out lie.

        I posted a link that takes you to an actuality of a Levin show where he guts the fraudster T-rump like a trout.

        Anyone can listen, and I invite everyone to do so.

        You have gone full psychotic trying NOT to answer the simple, direct questions I’ve posed.

        Kind of sad. But FUN…!!!!

          OMG Call Animal Control! It’s foaming at the mouth and posting to itself! Gonna catch its tail!!

          lmao

          http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/4.27.15-tail-chase2.jpg

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 8:40 pm

          You can’t be “lmao” since your ass is in your mouth, per your link.

          How much does Trump pay you? Really?

          I misunderstood your comment:

          —–
          “Ragspierre | October 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm

          Who hasn’t been invited to Levin’s show?

          Levin has said some favorable things that a VERY qualified, like his comments on the NOT T-rump tax plan (while endorsing a Flat or Fair Tax plan more).

          I haven’t heard him endorse Duh Donald. You?

          Levin MAY have changed his views on the fraud that is T-rump.

          I haven’t.

          Do you question the validity of the comments Levin made?”

          —–

          After reading it carefully I see what you were saying.
          Mine was not a lie, rather I misread your statement, as implying Trump had not been on his show.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 9:09 pm

          I’ll buy that. You are not fully psychotic. I’m glad!

Rags, what will you do IF Trump is the nominee? What will you do if Trump is elected POTUS?

I’m thinking you should consider having a Plan B. Just saying.

    Ragspierre in reply to platypus. | October 21, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    I’ve long ago said there is no way in hell I’d vote for the fraudster T-rump.

    If he’s elected I’ll be the loyal…and highly exorcised…opposition. And I’ll work to see him impeached if he is worthy of it.

      “And I’ll work to see him impeached if he is worthy of it.”

      Good luck with that. Have you been working to see Obama impeached? How is that effort going?

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 22, 2015 at 8:46 am

        For years. I worked to get him “unelected”, too.

        How’s it going? Whadda thank, sparky?

        The difficulty of removing a really dangerous POTUS is WHY I oppose T-rump. We cannot stand another.

    Barry in reply to platypus. | October 21, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    Plan B.:

    Reading through this comment thread it may be suicide.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 22, 2015 at 8:19 am

      Electing ANOTHER BIG GOVERNMENT narcissist may well prove to be national suicide.

      The nation has never had…and never should have…an oligarch as chief executive, and T-rump is simply that, and a really, truly bad and dangerous one, at that.

      People know enough…or have it available to them…to know to stay well away from this creep. Let him contribute…like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan…here or there, but NEVER let him near government power. Not any closer than he’s come buying and selling influence as Mr. Establishment.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2291

Well, that screws up the ol’ narrative, huh?

“With a big boost from women, Dr. Ben Carson leads Donald Trump 28 – 20 percent among Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants, with 13 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and 10 percent for Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend