Image 01 Image 03

Who or What is Behind Trump’s Online Army?

Who or What is Behind Trump’s Online Army?

A peek into the botnet

If you’ve spent any time on social media, particularly in the politicalsphere, chances are you’ve encountered an internet troll or two. This election cycle has been er, um… interesting. I never thought I’d long for the days the so-called Paulbots would troll my feeds lecturing me about liberty and the Constitution and Dr. Paul. At least most of those accounts were real. Alas…

Not so in 2016.

The Trumpbots, or accounts that seem to exist solely to attack those with unfavorable views of The Donald, are a special breed of vicious. I’ve learned it’s best to ignore, block, and move on. Why waste time on people, or bots rather, not interested in positive engagement, I say.

I’ve also suspected there was a concerted effort to derail conversation on social media and to attempt to fluster influencers. It all reeked of some kind of psychological web warfare. Turns out, I might have been right.

Sure, Trump pulls in around a third of the Republican primary vote now, but it’s curious that he had an overwhelming appearance of support right out of the gate. The reader may remember Trump’s campaign was busted paying individuals to attend his early rallies.

These Trumpbots are behave especially hostile towards Ted Cruz. Professor Jacobson has encountered what was likely the working of the Trump botnet on more than one occasion, “It seems that every time our Twitter account gets involuntarily looped into some endless stream of vicious anti-Cruz tweeting, typically because we’ve retweeted something pro-Cruz by a well-known person, the relentless pro-Trump protagonist is someone with very few followers, but thousands of tweets,” he said.

Yesterday, Digital Analyst, Patrick Ruffini began digging into a score of Twitter accounts that seem to explain this bizarre Trump/social media phenomena. It might also explain the consistent skew in online polling (read: Drudge Poll).

Earlier this week, Jason Taylor, blogging at Medium, explained how it’s possible to procure around 500,000 ‘aged’ Twitter accounts to create a botnet:

From my years on Twitter I’ve ran many campaigns against in what I believed to be wrong, and unjust. I have years of knowledge on how to run multiple Twitter accounts, and how to go about getting those. It’s not as simple as going out, creating an email account and then starting a Twitter account, not if you’re talking about five hundred thousand accounts. And, brand spanking new Twitter accounts won’t cut it, they get suspended to easy. You need “aged” accounts, accounts that have been steeping for at least five years.

There are many places to go on the dark web to buy Twitter accounts that also come with email addresses, that’s where Team Trump went.

These “aged” accounts are not cheap, to amass half a million of those you’re looking at some real cash, not that Trump doesn’t have it, but you need planning and someone well versed in social media to put this plan into action. I’m sure that the Trump Team new the power of Twitter long before he ever jumped in the race for President.

With these Twitter accounts, Facebook, and an email account to go along with each one; it’s no surprise he (Trump) wins every online poll. Trump has tried to control the narrative from the start, and he’s done a pretty good job of it, up until now. This was well thought out, and executed the way a general might map out a war.

These Twitter accounts are easy to spot, accounts that are dated 2009 to 2012, with few followers and a solid line of Donald Trump propaganda. There are real people running these Twitter accounts, mostly from the middle east, using VPN’s and Proxy’s to hide from United States Twitter.

Erick Erickson too explored Trump’s manufactured support and the troll accounts that harass him via email or call into his radio show insisting he said something anti-Trump when Erickson wasn’t even on the air — he was on holiday.

Last Tuesday night, my radio show saw a wave of callers calling in to complain about what I was saying that very night on radio. The callers assured my call screener they were listening. The calls were coming from area codes all over the nation and they were very angry about what I had just said on the radio that very night about Trump.

I was on vacation. The guest host had been talking about local matters and had not even mentioned Trump. Hello, seminar callers. Likewise, many of the calls to my radio station demanding I be fired or disciplined for insulting Trump have come from people making statements about my radio show that clearly indicate they have not listened to the show or the station.

Similarly, whenever I get a wave of emails attacking me for things about Trump, frequently the same IP address pops up. On Twitter, the waves come from people with rarely used or new Twitter accounts that are suddenly all in for Trump — every tweet an attack against someone or Trump propaganda. More often than not, the accounts have pictures of someone other than the the person tweeting and most do not use real names.

Certainly it could be people with low social connectedness, as Michael Barone has noted, but it sure seems odd to suddenly get a a wave of #whitegenocide tweets from accounts that are just suddenly active and all in to attack people who oppose Trump.

And then there’s the ‘news’ site, pushing nothing but pro-Trump propaganda that originated from… Macedonia?

In the wake of the Wisconsin primary, for example, supporters of Donald Trump took to social media posting what appeared to be valid news reports making fraudulent claims that electronic voting machines in Wisconsin were switching from Donald Trump to Ted Cruz.

This particular fake story appears to have originated at, and was distributed ad nauseum all over social media. But the bogus story or a variation of it was additionally cited at many other pro-Trump propaganda websites, which were also shared repeatedly on social media.

An analysis prepared by John Daniels, editor-in-chief of and exclusively relayed to the Examiner examined numerous “news” sites. Daniels determined that the following pro-Trump propaganda sites sprung up in only the past several months from Macedonia, a nation bordering Greece. Using the website ICANN WHOIS, Daniels was able to determine the registrar, origination date and location of these websites:


The curious fact that pro-Trump websites are originating from a Russian-leaning Slavic outpost in southeastern Europe raises questions, particularly considering the strange alliance between Donald Trump and pro-Russia conservative outlets such as InfoWars and Michael Savage.

Articles about fake voter fraud in Wisconsin and claims that Ted Cruz will be dropping out of the presidential race (he is not) were posted at all of the above sites. They linked back to other pro-Trump sites such as, and

Included in the slideshow above is this excerpt from Trump’s The Art of the Deal where he discusses creating a perception to close a deal:

“My leverage came from confirming an impression they were already predisposed to believe,” wrote Trump.

Smart politics or gutter-dwelling tactics? Doesn’t really matter at this point because it worked.

[Featured Image: Cave Troll, Photo by Kevin Dooley]

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


William A. Jacobson | April 8, 2016 at 4:55 pm

It seems that every time our Twitter account gets involuntarily looped into some endless stream of vicious anti-Cruz tweeting, typically because we’ve retweeted something pro-Cruz by a well-known person, the relentless pro-Trump protagonist is someone with very few followers, but thousands of tweets.

    Apparently I was mistaken when I thought that LI had refrained from excessive slamming of Trump supporters.
    One might wonder if any Trump supporters ever feel the same – how they get endless stream of vicious anti-Trump tweeting by equally empty Twitter accounts? I am not on Twitter so I didn’t realize that the number of followers determined the worth of someone’s comments

    Hi Bill,

    I have experienced the same thing with characters on twitter in every election cycle since I got active on twitter in 2009.

    The worst are liberals but this primary cycle I have gotten attacked by ‘some’ Trump supporters and ‘some’ Cruz supporters who decided to wage a running war with me on my timeline.

    I shut them down, usually on the spot. I don’t have time to waste on giving them attention.

    Since March 11, that field narrowed down to ‘some’ Cruz supporters on the warpath. I either mute or block them depending on several factors.

    I also availed membership in Rush Limbaugh’s shared twitter block list.

    I have lost long time twitter followers & friends over differences of opinion on presidential candidate support or rejection in 2012 and in this primary.

    I think you may be in shell shock because we expect this from liberals but not from conservatives.

    As far as Erick Erickson’s conspiracy theory is concerned, I am not impressed.

    As I recall, during the battle on Dancing With The Stars (which I have never watched) when Bristol Palin was competing and liberals were going berserk, you promoted people voting multiple times for her.

    Correct me if I my memory is faulty on that.

    The Drudge Poll can, and probably is, jacked with a single computer with a single program by multiple entities representing their own candidate, be it Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, etc, etc.

    Drudge relies on depositing a cookie when you vote to prevent re-votes. Clear history on the browser to include cookies within the last hour and you can set there and vote over and over. A lot of people do that. It’s also a PITA and not worth the effort.

    Matt Drudge may even manipulate the results at his end requiring no one to vote at all.

    I believe you are barking up a tree that does not, in the end, matter a single smidgen.

    No one ever got elected to public office by voting on the Drudge Report Poll.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 8, 2016 at 7:48 pm

      Here’s YOUR straw man…

      “Nobody ever got elected…by…”

      But you want everyone to overlook the premise of the piece; Mssr. Arte d’Deal SHAPES perceptions by fair means or foul. And perceptions DO influence elections.

      As he brags in “his” book…he lies. He lies to his partners, he lies to his spouses, he lies to EVERYONE. It’s who he is.

      And you KNOW it, and you excuse it.

        Well… you cleaned up your act a little bit. That’s a glimmer of progress. It’s still a personal attack though.

        I don’t have a “squad.” I’m not in a “squad.”

        Anyone who thinks in terms of “squads” is most likely in a “squad.”

        You vilify virtually everyone with whom you disagree, Rags.

        Go have a brewsky and chill out.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 8, 2016 at 8:15 pm

        Ummm….poor old thing…

        Where is “squad” in my post?

          Leading off with another personal attack, I see.

          Here it is:

          Ragspierre | April 8, 2016 at 7:26 pm

          What a small (weak) squad of straw men!

          But that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it, mole troll?

          Nobody “vilified ~40% of Republican primary voters” as anything. That’s YOUR lie.

          Pitiful. Like your histrionics over “sedition”!


          Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          Well, the first time Ragspierre used “squad of straw men” he was replying to DaMav, not the Voting Female.

          Nice turn of phrase there, “squad of straw men.” The expression “straw man” refers to a hypothetical person, a person who really isn’t there. If we were to say “Some people say we should be racists, but I say we should judge a man or woman, not by his or her race, but by the content of their character, or at least their current work history attendance, or the balance of their bank account.” Then the “some people…” is a straw man, a make-believe person, who may or may not exist. Usually seems they don’t exist. A “squad of straw men” would then be a collection of people who don’t exist. Good marks for an alliterative start, “squ..” and “str..” For full marks on alliteration one needs a minimum of three, me thinks. Such as “At the University of Iowa College of Education the proud professors pose as a pack of preening peacocks.”

          Nice of Voting Female to stick up for DaMav, who probably thinks he or she can defend themselves. They probably have squads of straw men arranged into platoons and companies and regiments and brigades and the like. Right over there. See them? I don’t either.

          As I was walking up the stair
          I met a man who wasn’t there.
          I met that man again today.
          I wish that he would go away.

      Postscript: The tweet by @BecomeATexan you show at the bottom of your post?

      He’s a follower of mine. I also follow him.

      He does him and I do me. We don’t battle each other.

    CloseTheFed in reply to William A. Jacobson. | April 8, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds like me. I only had a hundred followers, but 14k tweets! I was quite the tweeter!!!

Not buying it.

Trump had near zero polling until he started his campaign by taking on issues that the Right had long surrendered on.

Every time he was willing to say something outrageous and un-PC, everybody who agreed with that un-PC statement became a hardcore supporter that millions of $$ of negative ads could never dislodge. The other candidates couldn’t compete without surrendering their allegiance to PC, and nobody stole Trumps issues.

Some of these long ignored issues turned out to be popular, just suppressed.

And today, Trump’s issues poll higher than Trump. Trump’s support is issues-based. It’s no coincidence that Bernie is doing well with a similar message on some of the same issues.

The votes are in. The support was real! People weren’t supporting Trump because he was the front runner, they were supporting Jeb for that reason!

Tin foil hat time at LI today.

I like the part about how fake twitter accounts turn into actual real life people who call Erik Ericson. Now THAT is a magic trick of the mind.

I also love the selective memories and reading comprehension of the cruzbots that read LI and see an avalanche of trumpbot posts, and NEVER see the 3 to 5 times as many cruzbot posts. Or they see a strong REPLY by a trumpbot to some vile cruzbot insult, and only count the reply as being nasty.

I think the professor may need to start taking donations for some of the cruzbots and authors here in tinfoil. They aren’t going to have enough.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    “Erick Erickson too explored Trump’s manufactured support and the troll accounts that harass him via email or call into his radio show insisting he said something anti-Trump when Erickson wasn’t even on the air — he was on holiday.”

    I just loved your criticism of “reading comprehension” of people you slime.

    Amazing. But typical.

BTW, there is a rumor starting to go around on the internet that Cruz and Heidi are cousins. That Cruz married his cousin. If true that could explain the look on Heidi’s face in that picture Trump retweeted.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Just plain trolling. Worthless.

    Paul in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    You sound more and more like a full-blown progressive every day. This is the same slime tactic that Hairy Reed used against Romney.

    Maybe more than a rumor….

    Republican presidential runner Ted Cruz has stemmed controversy within Gay rights groups after a statement this week on a radio show that he is “against gay marriage” but “is married to his own cousin”.

    The rumors spread after a phone interview with local Cincinnati radio station WMKZ 89.5 FM where the former Texas senator was asked about gay rights and marriage.

    The favorite runner up for the Republican nomination responded that “it is up to the states, and not the Federal Government, to decide of laws concerning marriage. Under Federal law, I would never have been allowed to marry my own wife, who is in fact, my cousin” he told Radio host Jack Fisherman.

    This just gets weirder and weirder…..Ted Cruz is married to his third cousin and his state apparently said that was legal? Oh my head hurts. What happened to his narrative that he met Heidi while working on the Bush campaign? Did he know she was his third cousin then?

    Oh……just send him back to Canada!

      Gunstar1 in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 2:25 pm

      Just more propaganda. They dont even try to explain what it means, which shows it it just a hit piece. You dont even know what it means do you?

      “my wife is not my first cousin, she is my third cousin by alliance, which is completely different and legal in most states”

      It means, by marriage. Not blood related.

      Gunstar1 in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 6:03 pm

      I looked at the site closer as the quote didn’t make sense. No state bans marriage to your third cousin (most people don’t even know their 3rd cousin), especially if they are your cousin by marriage (not even blood related).

      World News Daily Report is a satire website like the Onion.

      Gary and the blogger he linked to fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

        The Trump fans are desperate. They just love their made up, tinfoil hat conspiracies and low-level, surface “thought.” The word “Ted” doesn’t appear on his birth certificate so he must be a fake (seriously, they said this, only last week!), he was a top client of the DC Madame in 2010 . . . except she’d offed herself in 2008, his wife is a lunatic . . . and ugly! It goes on and on, these people are clowns, their candidate is a clown, and everything they say is clownish.

    RodFC in reply to Gary Britt. | April 8, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    You mean all that time that I thought Heidi was Hillary Mark II, and in reality she is Elenaor Mark II?

Henry Hawkins | April 8, 2016 at 6:03 pm

Cue the uglier local Trumpbots…………

    Gee Henry, tell us again how trump wants to screw his own daughter.

    Then call Trump supporters ugly. Maybe you can figure out that term of yours, let’s see, what was it..

    Cognitive dissonance, that’s it.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Barry. | April 9, 2016 at 8:49 am

      Still smarting over that, are you?


        It just reminds me of your ignorance, or lack of reading comprehension.

        Ugly thoughts you have.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Barry. | April 9, 2016 at 2:51 pm


          A direct C&P of your post showing blind hypocrisy, but I’m the ignorant one. Weeks later, you’re still hurting about it. I did not realize how snowflake sensitive you were.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | April 9, 2016 at 3:59 pm

          He’s as nutty as any fruitcake, and a mean, nasty, lying old coot who ASSumes the very worst about people.

          (See below)

          Barry in reply to Barry. | April 9, 2016 at 4:36 pm

          “He’s as nutty as any fruitcake, and a mean, nasty, lying old coot who ASSumes the very worst about people.”

          That would mean I’m just like you and Henry. But I’m not, I’m not a fruitcake nor do I tell lies. Mean, nasty, and old I’ll plead the 5th.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | April 9, 2016 at 4:39 pm

          Oh, and Henry, there was no hypocrisy in that particular comment. Which is why it shows your ignorance or lack of reading comprehension skills.

          So, yes, I remember it, but not for the reason you think. I remember it because it shows your true nature, much as your accusation that trump wishes to sleep with his daughter did.

          And then you call trump supporters ugly. LOL

I don’t see how any of this online trolling translates to votes at the ballot box. Back in 2012 Ron Paul was winning every online poll, often by large margins, but he failed miserably at the ballot box. I suspect many of Ron Paul’s followers are now supporting Trump, but their antics will no more help Trump than they helped Paul.

Far more important is that Trump has tapped into the anger of tens of millions of American who feel their country slipping away. And he’s right about many of the causes. But his solutions amount to bluster and lots of hand waving, and if elected he’ll succeed at little. But at least he’s caused the GOP to sit up and listen. It’s a start.

Cruz/Fiorina – 2016

Sad to see that this place has sunk to the point of villifying ~40% of Republican primary voters as horrid demons or cave trolls. This is not good natured ribbing of opponents but the infantile hatred of the interminably self righteous. Understandable when the product of troll attacks, disappointing when the sanctioned voice of an ostensibly conservative log.

One picture is worth a thousand words. How do we pull back together to defeat the Democrats in 2016, or doesn’t that matter to LI anymore?

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | April 8, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    What a small (weak) squad of straw men!

    But that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it, mole troll?

    Nobody “vilified ~40% of Republican primary voters” as anything. That’s YOUR lie.

    Pitiful. Like your histrionics over “sedition”!


    CloseTheFed in reply to DaMav. | April 8, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Dear DaMav:

    Totally agree. If not Trump, I can accept Cruz – though I agree with Coulter’s column he’s not native born.

    But aside from that,, Trump or Cruz would be a tremendous improvement over O, and hilary and sanders.

    I don’t get the fury, just don’t get it.

    I’m not angry at any GOP candidate for prez – except maybe Kasich for what he said at the first debate. Another sanctimonious, arrogant piece of crap.

This is nothing new. Obama’s online army was a bunch of bots too.

    myiq2xu in reply to myiq2xu. | April 8, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    But the existence of online bots doesn’t explain all the people showing up at Trump rallies.

      I ran into roving liberal twitter gangs in starting in 2009.

      They were well organized and well trained by liberal twitter experts like @Shoq.

      They worked as teams and exploited twitter’s anti-spam algorithm to the hilt to get Conservatives suspended.

      If an unwitting victim responded to a challenge from one of them, they would launch a block party by having hundreds of them block the victim until the algorithm kicked in and suspended the victim.

      On an aside, I have noticed your id here from time to time and was puzzled over it.

      I just got it. myiq2xu = My IQ (Is) Two Times You(rs)

    “Mark Levin just announced on his radio show that he is now officially #NeverTrump. This just after he hammered #NeverTrumpers the other day.”

    Poor Mark Levin… his emotions got away with him… just like you, Rags. You two make quite an emotional pair.

      CloseTheFed in reply to VotingFemale. | April 8, 2016 at 11:14 pm

      Levin’s emotions didn’t get away from him… It was more, someone connected with Trump GORED HIS OX.

      So, he was in favor of ignoring goring until the goring happened to him personally.

      Whatever. Trump is the man!

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 8, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    LOL, Levin is as deranged as the rest of you. Wonder what he’ll say tomorrow…

    Turns out Levin is throwing a little temper tantrum because Ann Coulter and Roger Stone called him and Erik Erickson out for taking payoffs from GOPe super pacs to oppose Trump. The payoffs are in the m I de of corruption of old Jim Wright. They buy half a million dollars worth of one of their books or feed money to them in other ways.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 2:02 am

      And, of course, that’s a patck of lies.

      It’s just what you are.

        So you say, but you are a known liar for Cruz and his supporters.

        Ann Coulter and others say different. Some of the payoffs are public record and Levin admits to getting the money. He just claims it wasn’t a payoff. Jim Wright said the same thing about his “book sales”.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 2:28 pm

        Levin is bought and paid for just like all the other hacks. Everything they say is for money. They will sell their own mothers for a dime.

        Are you that easily fooled?

In the first debate on Fox I was willing to support Trump, Cruz or Carly and still have an open mind. Trump brings new perspective into the GOP for sure. No one talked about building a wall (not a fence); sending illegals back; close scrutiny of Muslim immigrants/refugees. Cruz remains strong on the constitution. Nobody deserves vilification from LI contributors for supporting the GOP candidate of their choice. If LI continues down the same path as Glenn Beck nonsense you do great harm to unifying the party and defeating Hillary. The bots from both Cruz & Trump are guilty of this & it must stop now. A word to the wise!

assemblerhead | April 8, 2016 at 8:21 pm

The Prof is right.

When the election is over, it will be very easy to spot the “bots”.
No paychecks == no posts.

Too bad you can’t monetize them. ( i.e. make them pay for every post. )

Or can you? …. hhmmmm ….

Donald Trump – The American Gladiator **Graphic Content** – This video is GREAT..

NY – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary:

Donald Trump 56% –
Ted Cruz 22% –
John Kasich 17% – (Emerson College 04/08/2016)

Source: Emerson College

Method: Phone

Date: 04/06/2016 – 04/07/2016

Voters: 321 (Likely voters)

Margin of Error: 5.4 %

Full Result:

Trump 56%
Cruz 22%
Kasich 17%

– See more at:

    Those numbers make perfect sense:
    1.) It’s Trump’s home state and where he headquarters his Trump Empire.

    2.) NYC is ridiculously liberal. It makes sense that the down-staters, who make up half of the population, would support a RINO, and a recent convert of a RINO at that.

    My guess is in a county by county match-up, you’ll see Trump take all the NYC areas, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, and Cruz will take the rural areas, the military bases and Kasich will take the odd county here or there with older, heavily white population.

BTW Professor Jacobson, I discovered something after 3-11…
A noteworthy number of my followers showed disapproval of me actively campaigning for a candidate they support. My doing that was a style, mode, mission departure on my part.

I generally lead the same role as you have typically done on twitter until somewhat recently by going into a dedicated attack mode on a specific candidate.

They like it much better when I stick to what I normally do.
These are the well behaved non-rowdy folks.

It’s important that I note that I weed my follower garden from every few days to every few weeks to delete follows who are not politically engaged conservatives.

My following (except recent unvetted followers) are all active solid conservative folks.

healthguyfsu | April 8, 2016 at 10:15 pm

You may think the “1/3 or so” support that Trump has garnered is unimpressive but consider the circumstances. First off, everyone’s pool has been diluted by the large number of candidates (which was one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a long time). Secondly, this guy is not even a lifelong conservative and is not a politician by trade and he garners that much support?
If a guy like Trump can do that then, GOP, it is time to look within, audit your executive membership, and purge the crapola that is dragging down the party.

Seems the “pro Trump” commenters on LI are names I did not see a year ago. They also seem militantly belligerent and will comment 10-20 times each- often taking the comment count into the hundreds.

All other stories seldom get past 15.

The outcome is I went from indifferent to despising Trump.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Andy. | April 8, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    Dude, I used to post here under my own name. But something came up, and I decided to ditch my name and post anonymously. And it happened, oh, about a year ago.

    Get a grip.

And now you know why when it’s election year, I never answer the phone with a phone number I don’t recognize or it says “blocked”. 🙂

Trump and Cruz have different strengths, but they both have strengths. It would be superb, to do a Trump/Cruz ticket, and have Trump for 8, then Cruz for 8.


Ruffini makes a damning case with the details, but even so it is important to recognize that these shill accounts just tweet to benefit Trump directly. Much of the trolling of Trump critics comes from Stormfronters, white supremacists, conspiracy nuts, and neo-fascists who defend Trump but also push their psychotic agenda – which a paid shill would not be permitted to do, due to backlash potential.

Most Trumpkins fall into neither group, but are more closely related to the elderly victims who deny they’ve been scammed by a fraud because they are ashamed to admit it to themselves. It’s a common form of denial.

    That has to be the biggest crock of dog crap I have read so far today. You guys have no idea how desperate you appear to sane people with a clue.

    This is the kind of crap slinging usually launched by Hillary & Bernie supporters.

    It is so far out in orbit, NASA must be tracking it on radar.

    Keep it up.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | April 9, 2016 at 1:19 pm

      All bullshit ad hominem, without a single fact, argument, or…well, anything but that river in Egypt…

        Perfect description of Mav’s Socialist-inspired crap-slinging, Rags.

        Ragspierre | April 9, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        All bullshit ad hominem, without a single fact, argument, or…well, anything but that river in Egypt…

A third of Republican voters who support Donald Trump could turn their backs on their party in November’s presidential election if he is denied the nomination in a contested convention, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The results are bad news for Trump’s rivals as well as party elites opposed to the real estate billionaire, suggesting that an alternative Republican nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential race would have a tougher road against the Democrats.

“If it’s a close election, this is devastating news” for the Republicans, said Donald Green, an expert on election turnout at Columbia University.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 30 to April 8 asked Trump’s Republican supporters two questions: if Trump wins the most delegates in the primaries but loses the nomination, what would they do on Election Day, and how would it impact their relationship with the Republican Party?

Sixty-six percent said they would vote for the candidate who eventually wins the nomination, while the remaining third were split between a number of alternatives such as not voting, supporting a third-party candidate, and switching parties and voting for the Democratic nominee.

Meanwhile, 58 percent said they would remain with the Republican Party. Another 16 percent said they would leave it, and 26 percent said they did not know what they would do with their registration. The online poll of 468 Republican Trump supporters has a credibility interval of 5.3 percentage points.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    We already know that you’ll vote Deemocrat if you man-crush is short of the required MAJORITY and is not immaculated anyway.

    Because you are a Collectivist puke, and nothing BUT a Collectivist puke, and you’ve said so.

    We’ll do fine without the likes of you.

      What all upset that all you obnoxious cruzbot neverTrump warriors have persuaded 1/3 or more of Trump supporters to neverCruz?

      Denial of reality is your wheel house.

        Pretty much, Gary.

        Now that Levin, Beck, and Erickson have vowed to vote for Hillary, the GOP can self-ignite with #NeverGOP.

        All bets are off. Free for all. These LI hate-bots are closet liberals at the end of the day, by their actions.

        They will vote for Hillary and happily throw the race card like card carrying followers of the Rev Al Sharpton.

        I love it actually. They are so far off the conservative reservation, a GPS couldn’t guide them back.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

        The ONLY person who’s vowed to vote for Hellary is your buddy, Gari Butt Boi Britt, on the condition his man-crush and yours is not immaculated.

        You’re just a daft old, LYING thing.

          There’s the old Rags; personal attacks rule his life…
          He’s a Hillary voter and proud of it… him and his fellow democrat voters Levin Beck & Erickson.

          “Ragspierre | April 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

          The ONLY person who’s vowed to vote for Hellary is your buddy, Gari Butt Boi Britt, on the condition his man-crush and yours is not immaculated.

          You’re just a daft old, LYING thing.”

          And you Rags have sworn if Trump is gop nominee you won’t vote for Trump. Not voting or voting for somebody else IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY. You know tgat of course.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 4:21 pm

          What I know is you lie.

          I won’t vote for ANY Collectivist. Der Donald is a Collectivist. As are you.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      Lying about reality is in YOUR wheelhouse.

      Nothing I’ve said affronts reality.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm

        #nevertrump = #readyforhillary

        But then, no one should be surprised that people that voted for Romney would prefer Hillary. No difference.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | April 9, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    “A third of Republican voters who support Donald Trump could turn their backs on their party in November’s presidential election if he is denied the nomination in a contested convention, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.”

    Well, as usual, you lie.

    If you look at the polling, it says that 66% will support the GOP nominee, and ANOTHER 10%+ are not sure.

    That doesn’t leave “one-third”, Mr. H&R Blockhead.


filiusdextris | April 9, 2016 at 2:31 pm

I’ve long had the impression there were people paid to post pro-liberal, anti-Christian propaganda on the Fox News comments. It’s just more of the same with an election bent. Can’t believe anything on the internet/media these days…

Here is something for former conservative now democrat voters on LI to obsess over…

Donald J. Trump, Time Magazine’s 2016 Man Of The Year

Twitter Feed:

Donald J. Trump

“@gene70: @realDonaldTrump The Real Person Of The Year! ” Wow!

5:02am · 9 Apr 2016 · Twitter for Android

3,506 Retweets 9,765 Likes

But the Trump-wins-by-turning-out-white-Republicans theory breaks down fatally when you look at where Trump is with every other group. In order to claw his way into the poor position he’s in with white voters, Trump has cheesed off every other demographic group: He’s minus-53 with self-described moderates; minus-62 with voters age 18 to 34; minus-71 with Hispanics.

In order to beat Hillary Clinton, Trump has to outdo the Romney 2012 numbers. But even if he does better among white voters—and right now it looks like he’ll do worse—it does no good if he can’t stay at Romney’s level among other groups. And Trump is poised to do much worse than Romney with just about everyone else.

But, hey, HE shouldn’t HAVE to fight! RIGHT…!?!?!?

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Why don’t you include Cruz’s numbers in your report? Don’t look too hot do they?

    Reagans numbers were no better at this point in time. How did that work out? Same basic groups of people opposed Reagan as well.

      Are you seriously drawing parallels between Trump and Reagan?


        Geez Fuzzy. I drew a parallel to Cruz’s numbers, then to Reagan’s standing in the polls at this point in time, and the fact that the same so called “conservative” groups opposed Reagan.

        TDS is blinding. If you dispute those parallels please, by all means, tell us why.

        If I said Trump was nice to a puppy dog, you would get all shook up.

The reason the media spends so much time on Trump is to divert attention away from the fact that Democrats have gone so far to the extreme left that they are running open Marxists for US president! In my lifetime, commie thugs with Sanders ideology vowed to bury us and the US Govt trained us to kill them and sent us overseas to do just that. While Reagan and GHWB were waging a brilliant war to defeat the evil Soviet Union, Sanders took his bride there on their honeymoon! If you thought Howard Dean was crazy – and he is – then Bernie Sanders belongs in a padded cell….along with much of the rest of the Democrat Party! Instead of promising a chicken in every pot….Sanders promise is a fruitcake in every closet! in other words, one can only wonder if it isn’t a giant diversionary tactic. All these pundits waxing hysterical over the proposition that a free enterprise capitalist like Donald Trump or a conservative black man may become President. Yes, a frantic diversionary effort to draw attention away from the fact that the Democrats have gone so far to the extreme left that they are running open Marxists for US President. Apparently Howard Dean wasn’t crazy enough because Bernie Sanders, who took his wife to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon, makes Dean look positively sane. And Hillary Clinton, whose lies, corruption and crimes could fill volumes, makes John Edwards look totally ethical. Yes, if I were a member of the “protect Democrats at all cost” journo-caucus, I’d be frantic too.