Seven Reasons Democrats Should Be Terrified of Donald Trump

By Mathew Continetti, NEW BEACON

Donald Trump

President Obama is playing a cynical game. He’s consistently raised Donald Trump’s profile in an attempt to boost the mogul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. Obama’s theory is that Trump is unelectable. And it’s true that Trump is the only candidate in the Republican field who consistently loses in general election match ups against Hillary Clinton. A Trump nomination, Democrats believe, would be the best way to hold the White House for another four years.

Does the idea that Trump is unelectable sound familiar? It should. Republican elites said much the same thing in the six months preceding Trump’s second place finish in Iowa and first place finish in New Hampshire. The GOP’s top political consultants laughed Trump off, calling him names and saying he didn’t have a chance. Now he’s on track to winning the nomination. While I still believe he would be the underdog in a general election, there are several reasons the Democrats are underestimating his powers. Here are seven:

Clinton’s Lead Is Surmountable
Clinton enjoys a 2.8-point advantage over Trump in the current Real Clear Politics average of polls. Not exactly a landslide.

Trump’s Positions are Popular
Typically a Republican candidate moves to the right during a primary in order to win over conservatives. But the positions that candidate takes in the primary can hurt him in the general election. But Trump hasn’t moved in any direction. He’s consistently voiced his opposition to illegal immigration, free trade, foreign wars, “people dying in the streets,” and entitlement cuts. Support for the Great Wall of Trump is mixed, but the public supports the Trump view of trade and foreign policy. And Trump is closer to the general electorate on social issues than the other Republican candidates. His position on Planned Parenthood, for example, is that it should not receive federal funding until it exits the abortion business. Polling bolsters this stance.

Trump Will Have Months to Find and Occupy the Political Center
At this point it’s possible that Trump will secure the Republican nomination in three weeks. After Florida and Ohio vote, Trump will turn his attention to the general election. He’ll be free to hone his message and adapt to the new environment. His most likely opponent, however, may still be embroiled in a contested primary. Fueled by small dollar contributions, Bernie Sanders is unlikely to leave the Democratic race any time soon. So Hillary will be running against both Bernie and Trump. And Trump will have time to figure out which lines against her work and which do not. He will use his earned media to define Clinton as weak on immigration, trade, foreign policy, and fitness for office. If past is prologue, Trump’s attacks will be loud, nasty, over the top. And they’ll work.

Hillary Clinton is a Terrible Presidential Candidate
Hillary is vulnerable. She’s the insider, Trump’s the outsider. Wall Street loves her, hates him. She’s a retread, he’s new to politics. Her own party does not trust her or think her honest. She’s dogged by the email scandal. Who knows what else she’ll have to respond to in the coming months. On the stump she’s flat, unfunny. Trump is dynamic and comical. Obama adviser David Axelrod has notedthe contrast. It doesn’t favor Hillary.

The Country Wants Change
Supermajorities say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Clinton, meanwhile, is the candidate of the status quo. And Democrats suffer from an enthusiasm gap. It’s evident in polls and in turnout. Trump is bringing new voters in, while Democratic turnout is down from 2008. Republican conventions are usually staid and somber affairs. Not with Trump as the nominee. The Democratic convention will look like a wake in comparison.

Michael Bloomberg’s Entry into the Race Would Help Trump
The few polls that have included Michael Bloomberg in a three-way race for president show the New York mayor taking votes not from Republicans but Democrats. Stands to reason, as Bloomberg is a cultural liberal whose top issues are gun control and climate change. Trump, meanwhile, is running as a pro-lifer and champion of the Second Amendment and enjoys evangelical support.

Global Chaos Helps Trump
Trump’s response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino greatly helped his chances. Imagine if another attack occurs during the presidential campaign. The same goes for a recession, or for chaos in China or on the Korean Peninsula or between Russia and Turkey. Would voters want to stick with the party that led us to this place? Or would they be willing to try their luck with the billionaire strongman?

Democrats will launch a two-pronged attack on Trump: They’ll attempt to define him as a racist and as unfit for the presidency. It could work. But remember that general election campaigns are contests between two candidates. Who’s proven to be the tougher, more agile, more compelling politician over the last six months: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? And who has proven more resistant to attack?

The Democrats say Donald Trump is a joke. They call him names, dismiss his chances. What they do not understand is that we are in the midst of a political phenomenon not unlike the one that brought Barack Obama to the White House. You can’t stop it. You can’t control it. Donald Trump is tearing apart the GOP. And the Democrats are next.

February 28, 2016 | 87 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 87 Comments

  1. Donald Trump’s Odds Of Winning Presidency Double To 25%

    Roger Aitken ,

    Contributor

    I write about financial markets, exchanges, IT and trading technology.

    Follow on Forbes (43)

    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    It seems remarkable. But ahead of the ‘Super Tuesday’ primaries in the southern US states of Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, matched bets on one of the fast growing betting exchanges indicates that Republican hopeful Donald Trump has a “75% probability” of securing his party’s nomination. But going all the way to the White House has shortened to a 1-in-4 (25%) chance.

    These latest odds on Mr Trump becoming the 44th US President show that his chances have doubled in the past six weeks. Hillary Clinton and Trump are at this point in time the clear favourites to lead their respective parties into this autumn’s US Presidential election.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2016/03/01/us-presidentials-donald-trumps-odds-for-president-double-to-25/#2ca206024d10

  2. Bear Klein Said:

    So you think if Trump does not get most of the Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Carson GOP voters

    I think the same thing will happen that usually happens…that he will get a lot of them when they have to choose for the dems or pubs in power….. but I say again that no GOP candidate can win without the support of the non GOP who I mentioned.
    Sorry, cant find the old abacus so I have to submit my argument on intuition based on experience.
    The crux of my argument is contrary to polls….. I beleive that Trump has a much better chance of taking the non GOP voters than rubio or cruz for the reasons I stated before. Read the article I posted before on the Dems establishment fears as to whom they worry about Trump attracting. No one accepts that Trump is speaking to the specific issues of citizens whereas the parties are talking generalities, ideologies or platforms that most americans dont want even if their usual party wants it.

  3. @ bernard ross:

    So you think if Trump does not get most of the Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Carson GOP voters he can get enough cross over DEms and Independents he can still win the National Election?

    If that is your belief what are the numbers of these folks he is going to get to make up for the loss of 1/3 to almost 1/2 of the GOP voters?

    Do you need a new Abacus? Old one rusty? Just messing you!

  4. Tavis Smiley: Black America could get on Trump train

    I have been taken by myriad conversations I’ve had with black folk who don’t find those comments by Trump necessarily or automatically disqualifying.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/01/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-black-voters-primary-elections-2016-column/81150932/

    there is no doubt that immigrants will take jobs from blacks…. I think they also know that…. so will they buy ideology or job security? Those who work hard will likely be thinking about their jobs, their advancement, their childrens schools, their neigborhoods…..

    Trumps anti immigrant, anti shipping out american jobs, anti replacing americans with foreigners should be attractive to many blacks.

  5. Bear Klein Said:

    Yes Trumps success to become President will largely rest on his ability to get Cruz, Rubio, etc supporters to vote for him.

    NO, to be elected president the GOP candidate must receive votes from independents, fence sitters, non GOP registered members, even some democrats. No GOP pres. has won without them. I expect that those folks will be turned off by rubio and cruz…. because rubio is the same as bush and because cruz is an ideological conservative and the groups I mentioned are definitely not attracted to that ideology. Reagan only won because of the Iran hostage issue, the rise of nationalism wrt the oil embargo, the growing discomfort with union power. These were specific issues of concern and like today there are specific issues of concern. The GOP is attempting to sweep the muslim issue under the rug because they believe americans wont buy it… but I submit that is the major draw of Trump.

  6. babushka Said:

    In all the states where Trump has won, establishment Republican members of Congress have been renominated over anti-establishment challengers.

    who nominated them, what was the process, did it depend on the establishment system pushing them through? Were they just nominated or did they win the candidacy…was it an elective process? all these issues would be relevant to any conclusion you wish to draw from the “fact” you posted. Is it in fact even a “fact”….. citation?

  7. babushka Said:

    Trump voters are not angry opponents of the corrupt status quo. They are the national version of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura supporters. The only reason they are voting for Trump is that Kim Kardashian is not on the ballot.

    HMMMMM….. I have NEVER had the slightest interest in any of those you mentioned. Looks like you are afflicted with the same problem as the rest of the GOP….. an inability to understand what happened and therefore a frantic defamation campaign ……. reminds me of BDS folks agenda, a similar futile MO.

  8. Bear Klein Said:

    I would like to see him make peace and get to an understanding with Paul Ryan

    thats like expecting Jews to make peace with those who teach their children that Jews are sons of apes and pigs…. the jews cant do it…. its up to the pals…. same with ryan and the other GOP publicly trying to sabotage Trump after their party made a fraudulent agreement with Trump and are now reneging.

  9. The utter rejection of all that by the majority of us is what indeed shall be the presidential nomination of Trump

    You flatter yourself. In all the states where Trump has won, establishment Republican members of Congress have been renominated over anti-establishment challengers.

    Trump voters are not angry opponents of the corrupt status quo. They are the national version of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura supporters. The only reason they are voting for Trump is that Kim Kardashian is not on the ballot.

  10. @ ArnoldHarris:Good Post!!!!

    I am a lot younger than you but some of the stuff I remember and the rest by being an avid student of USA history when I was much younger.

    SEnator Byrd I remember had been a KKK wizard (Maybe). In 2008 Hillary sought his support.

    Yes Trumps success to become President will largely rest on his ability to get Cruz, Rubio, etc supporters to vote for him. Let us see if he can do the art of the deal with key Republicans so that many will back him in the end. He has ample time to do this. I would like to see him make peace and get to an understanding with Paul Ryan.

  11. @ Bear Klein:

    I don’t know how old you are or how far back in time you can remember the people and events of long ago. But as a man approaching 82 years of life, I can plainly remember people and events going back to the late 1930s.

    That included the era of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was sworn into office about one year before I was born in April 1934. In that time, the strength of the Democratic Party, which was dominant in this country, comprised support from at least two groups that could not possibly have been more alien from one another.

    In the then-industrialized Northern states, the big cities were all run by political machine politicians who had the support of first-generation American laborers, some employed but many not, along with ties to Charles Luciano’s Italian and Jewish criminal gangs. Nevertheless, the Roosevelt Democrats gracefully accepted their support before and after each election campaign.

    But the Southern states, from Texas to Virginia and up to the Ohio River, were solidly Democrat, and were represented by men who had nearly all been members of the Klu Klux Klan right up to the fateful night when the biggest Grand Dragon of them all, D C Stephenson, chose to repeatedly and viciously rape one of hos secretaries aboard a Chicago-bound night train, causing her to commit suicide and sending him to prison for most of the rest of his life, and all but destroying the Klan. That was an era when politics in all these Southern states were totally in the grip of racists who managed to keep all but a small number of blacks from voting. Nevertheless, the Roosevelt Democrats gracefully accepted their support before and after each election campaign.

    We now live in a very different kind of country, compared with what we had in those pre-World War 2 era. But the anthropological and sociological characteristics of this and all other cultures have undergone very little change, because civilizations and cultures are fixed in human life more or less similar to the way planetary bodies are fixed in their orbits around stars.

    If in fact Trump beats Clinton in the general election, it shall indeed only be possible because he is proving to be a far better unifier of the American nation than she could ever have been.

    Louis Farrakhan, David Duke, the small remnants of the once powerful KKK — all will shrink and disappear, first from the short attention spans of most people, then from all but the yellowing pages of mostly unread contemporary history books.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  12. Trump the Uniter

    Luis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) and David Duke (KKK) both singing the praises of Donald Trump. Quite a trick!!

    Would do both have in common? They hate Jews!

    I am not saying Trump is seeking them out but it is actually laugh out funny that they both like him!!

  13. Trump added to his supporters.

    Nation of Islam leader hails Trump for resisting ‘Jewish money’
    Louis Farrakhan claims GOP front-runner is only candidate to stand up to ‘those who con­trol the politics of Amer­ica’

    Donald Trump won praise from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for not taking Jewish money in his quest for the White House.

    Farrakhan, who has made frequent anti-Semitic comments, lauded Trump during a sermon Sunday in Chicago, according to the Anti-Defamation League website the following day.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/nation-of-islam-leader-hails-trump-for-resisting-jewish-money/

  14. @ babushka:
    The Republican Party ceased being the party of Abraham Lincoln upon his death by assassination and the swearing into power of his recently-elected vice president, Andrew Johnson. And it ceased being the party of Ronald Reagan upon the election victory of George Herbert Walker Bush in November 1989.

    As a matter of fact, both of the major political parties of the USA are remolded in greater or lesser degree by each national election.

    But the one thing different about this year’s election is that the populist-nationalist wing of the Republican Party has already been remolded by Trump, an outsider to the business-as-usual gang which is financed by Wall Street investors with vested interests in a status quo situation on foreign trade and unlimited and illegal immigration of cheap labor that undercuts the wages of American working class men and women. That, plus a blanket of forced political correctness that has long since begun strangling the constitutional rights of most Americans.

    The utter rejection of all that by the majority of us is what indeed shall be the presidential nomination of Trump, and what we are equally certain shall be his victory over and destruction of the Clinton political dynasty, exactly as he did to the Bush political dynasty.

    And yes, I think that all things considered, Trump as US president would be better for the long-term interests of the State of Israel. Not just being he is giving consideration to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — which I regard as nothing more than a gesture of useless hasbara — but because his policies of improved ties with Putin’s Russia will make it easier for Israel to have the courage to do the same, and for Israel to balance its foreign relations so as to reduced its dangerous dependence on the USA.

    In any case, we all will begin seeing how the Super Tuesday primary voting results are shaping up, starting about six hours from now.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  15. Bear Klein says:
    March 1, 2016 at 7:56 pm
    Actually if Trump becomes President change the name to “Trumpians” it will no longer be the GOP of either Lincoln or Regan.

    CORRECTION: Actually if Trump becomes President change the name to “Trumpians” Special Olympics it will no longer be the GOP of either Lincoln or Reagan.

  16. This was the 13th time that Soros has officially been a guest at the White House,….

    It is unsurprising that Soros was given access to Malley. The billionaire sits on the board of trustees and is a major funder of the International Crisis Group, where Malley served as Middle East director before being tapped by the Obama administration.

    His critics have pointed to an “anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias” that is evident in much of his public writing,…..

    In 2002, he argued that the Israeli army had damaged medical facilities and schools using “security concerns” as a false excuse.

    Malley previously served on the advisory council of J Street, a liberal fringe group that also receives funding from Soros….

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/george-soros-had-white-house-meeting-with-obamas-isis-czar/

    Soros created moveon org which installed obama, soros owns voting machine corps supplying the US from europe, Soros NGO’s push open borders policy which is currently flooding the US and EU with illegal immigrants…. a very dangerous man to this globe who always seems to benefit from the suffering of others.
    here’s how he operates:

    Putin is No Ally Against ISIS
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-no-ally-against-isis-by-george-soros-2016-02

    he blames putin for the flooding of refugees in europe and the breakup of the EU but we all know that it is his open borders NGO’s who petitioned the EU and US govs to let the floods in. What else could we expect from a man who helped the nazis confiscate Jewish properties and wagers on the downfalls of currencies like a carion. Perhaps he has bet on the fall of the euro?

  17. Actually if Trump becomes President change the name to “Trumpians” it will no longer be the GOP of either Lincoln or Regan.

  18. Bear Klein Said:

    Trump, himself representing nearly nothing of substance, has become the consummate protest candidate.

    Of course this is the same arrogance which led to Trumps rise and ceacescu’s fall
    Bear Klein Said:

    No matter how things sort out, the Republican Party will change.

    the incredible thing is that the gop establishment still dont understand the enormous gap between their fielded candidates and the american people. Their arrogance and ignorance highlights that they are run by donors, they have made themselves irrelevant, Trump is actually saving the GOP from its deserved natural demise resulting from the performance of the GOP in congress during the obama rule.
    the conservatives say “let them eat ideology” the establishment says “let them eat shit”….. the voters are interested in neither.

    It is so simple that its amazing the GOP still dont get it….. Trump discusses the issues with which voters are concerned and the rest of the GOP does not. The GOP needs to educate itself but must first drop the arrogance. Trump has demonstrated the irrelevance of the GOP in its current form.

    again its that public lie being deposed by the private truth
    https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63613230/comment-page-1#comment-63356000167530

  19. Bear Klein Said:

    Who is campaigning, in either party today, for open borders, or passing The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or sending troops back to Iraq or into Syria?

    they dont campaign on it, they keep it secret… but they vote on it in congress…. Obama, rubio, the GOP, all signed in the TPP corporate protection act…… similar to how BB campaigns as being right wing and then takes all left wing actions.

  20. Both Donald Trump’s supporters and detractors seem to agree that the rise of his rogue candidacy was precipitated by years of widening divergence between the Republican base and its established leadership.

    I dissent. This explanation does not account for why Republicans voters are supporting a pathologically dishonest left wing demagogue. His candidacy was obviously precipitated by excessive amounts of lead in the drinking water.

    Lead poisoning symptoms in adults

    High blood pressure
    Abdominal pain
    Constipation
    Joint pains
    Muscle pain
    Declines in mental functioning
    Pain, numbness or tingling of the extremities
    Headache
    Memory loss
    Mood disorders
    Reduced sperm count, abnormal sperm
    Miscarriage or premature birth in pregnant women

  21. Both Donald Trump’s supporters and detractors seem to agree that the rise of his rogue candidacy was precipitated by years of widening divergence between the Republican base and its established leadership. Trump, himself representing nearly nothing of substance, has become the consummate protest candidate. While many may be attracted to his nationalist rhetoric about rounding up illegals, taking on China, and making America great again, many others see through the facade, know Trump’s candidacy will mortally wound the party, and merely want to watch the world burn.

    Regardless of how we came to this point, it seems clear that the rise of Donald Trump signals a transformative moment in American politics. No matter how things sort out, the Republican Party will change.

  22. @ babushka:I am not a fan of Buchanan and he is an anti-Semite. I do not believe this of Trump.

    I don’t care whether Trump is an anti-Semite. The process is designed to select a president for the United States, not a husband for me. What matters is that the president a) be rock solid on Israel; and b) never give aid and comfort to Jew haters.

    Trump fails on both counts. He has slimed everyone from Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly to Ben Carson and Rosie O’Donnell, but he can’t bring himself to dump on David Duke?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfPfzo7wpC4

  23. @ babushka:I am not a fan of Buchanan and he is an anti-Semite. I do not believe this of Trump.

    As you may have surmised however I am not a big fan of Trump.

  24. Donald Trump donated $30,000 to homosexual activists, including a $20,000 grant to an organization that promoted “fisting” to middle school students, recommended books excusing homosexual pedophilia, and proclaimed its mission is “promoting homosexuality” in the public schools to children as early as kindergarten.

    According to a 990 form filed with the IRS, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $20,000 to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2012 and another $10,000 to Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/donald-trump-donated-to-group-that-promotes-homosexuality-in-kindergarten-f

    “Tough shit”?

    Bear Klein says:
    March 1, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    A Pat Buchanan type of GOP is being born if Trump wins the election.

    Buchanan has supported every fugitive Nazi war criminal discovered living in the United States.

  25. A Pat Buchanan type of GOP is being born if Trump wins the election. Here is an article by Buchanan. (Anti-Immigrant, anti-Mexican, endorsed by David Duke (KKK), anti-free trade, isolationist.

    A new GOP is born

    Pat Buchanan: Regardless of nominee, Trump surge marks ‘death rattle’ of establishment

    The first four Republican contests – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – produced record turnouts.

    While the prospect of routing Hillary Clinton and recapturing the White House brought out the true believers, it was Donald Trump’s name on the ballot and his calls for economic patriotism, border security and an end to imperial wars that brought out the throngs.

    The crowds that continue to come out for his appearances and the vast audiences he has attracted to GOP debates testify to his drawing power.

    Moreover, Trump has now been endorsed by Gov. Chris Christie, ex-chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the most respected conservatives on Capitol Hill.

    Yet, with polls pointing to a possible Trump sweep on Super Tuesday, save Texas, his probable nomination, and a chance for the GOP to take it all in the fall, is causing some conservatives and Republicans to threaten to bolt, go third party, stay home, or even vote for Clinton.

    They would prefer to lose to Clinton than win with Trump.

    A conservative friend told this writer that Trump, unlike, say, Ted Cruz, has never shown an interest in the Supreme Court, which, with Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat vacant, hangs in the balance.

    Yet, surely, a President Trump, hearing the clamor of those who elected him to find a Scalia, would be responsive.

    With President Clinton, the court is gone for a generation.

    We hear wails that the nomination of Trump would mean the end of the conservative movement. But how so?

    What do YOU think? What will be the outcome of Super Tuesday? Sound off in today’s WND poll

    If Trump won and conducted a conservative government, it would validate the movement. If Trump won and turned left, it would inspire an insurgency like Ronald Reagan’s in 1976, when the Ford-Rockefeller-Kissinger administration moved too far toward detente.

    If Trump ran and lost, the conservative movement would have President Clinton to unite and rally the troops against.

    One recalls Barry Goldwater’s historic wipeout in 1964. But, in 1966, Republicans made the greatest gains in a generation, and went on to win the presidency for 20 of the next 24 years.

    Undeniably, a Trump presidency would mean an end to the Bush and establishment policies on trade, immigration and intervention.

    But those policies have already been repudiated in the primaries, as they have proven to be transparent failures for America.

    As long ago as the early 1990s, populist conservatives were imploring George H.W. Bush to secure our Mexican border, as tens of thousands poured across in the San Diego-Tijuana corridor. Gov. Pete Wilson turned near-certain defeat into a stunning comeback victory in 1994 by promising to send the National Guard.

    Why did the establishment not respond then to the electorate? Why, instead of trashing Wilson for imperiling future party prospects with Hispanics, did the establishment not do what the people had demanded and move decisively to secure our southern border?

    Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

    What is conservative about uncontrolled borders?

    Why, as trade deficits with China and the world rose from the tens of billions to hundreds of billions, did the establishment not wake up and see the shuttering factories, the lost jobs and the ghost towns arising across America – and react?

    Could they not see that, as we celebrated globalization, Beijing and Tokyo were practicing ruthless mercantilism and protectionism?

    At the end of the Cold War in 1991, many Americans urged that, with the Soviet Empire dissolved and Soviet Union disintegrating, it was time to bring our troops home and let the rich fat nations that had been freeloading for half a century provide the soldiers and pay the cost of their own security.

    Instead, the establishment opted for empire, for expanding old alliances, dumping over regimes, crusading for democracy, sending our soldiers out to remake Third World countries in the image of Iowa and Vermont.

    Who now thinks all these wars were worth the cost?

    Whether Trump wins or loses the nomination, the immigration, trade and foreign policies pursued by the elites since the end of the Cold War are dead letters. The nation has declared them to be so in the primaries.

    Who is campaigning, in either party today, for open borders, or passing The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or sending troops back to Iraq or into Syria?

    The Bernie Sanders insurgency appears to have been turned back by the vested interests of his party. But like the George McGovern insurgency in ’72, which also relied heavily upon the enthusiasm of the young, Sanders’ socialism may be the ideological future of his party.

    The same may be said of the Trump insurgency. Whatever happens at Cleveland, the returns from the primaries look like the passing of the old order, the death rattle of an establishment fighting for its life, and being laughed at and mocked as it goes down.

    As in 1964 and 1980, a new Republican Party is taking shape.

    Defections are to be expected, and not altogether unwelcome.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/a-new-gop-is-born/#8YpI5OVRilMMeJLb.99

  26. CNN: On the Republican side, the new survey finds Trump’s lead is dominant, and his support tops that of his four remaining opponents combined. The businessman tops his nearest competitor by more than 30 points: 49% back Trump, 16% Marco Rubio, 15% Ted Cruz, 10% Ben Carson and 6% John Kasich.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/trump-clinton-dominant-as-super-tuesday-looms/index.html

    if true, then once again the tactics backfired (dduke and the kkk). Every time they pull these tricks the figures go higher.

  27. Voting in the Super Tuesday states commences about 13 hours from now. The polls close about 14 hours later. Whatever known or most carefully estimated voting strengths were this morning are more or less that which shall prevail tomorrow.

    Trump is leading all the other four Republican candidates by double-digit numbers, except in Texas, where Cruz, one of the two US senators representing Texas, is expected to achieve his only projected victory.

    Rubio leads nowhere, including Florida, in a mid-March primary election, where polls says he will be defeated strongly by Trump. If all that occurs as projected, the delegate-awarding system adopted by the Republican Party four years ago, then Trump will be the Republican candidate long before their convention in the summer.

    It is now far too late for anyone to maneuver the victory out of trump’s control. The most recent RealClearPolitics 2016 election poll shows Trump commanding 49 percent of the Republican vote, which is now slightly more than four times the sum of all the polling percentages of the remaining four candidates competing with him for the nomination. And if Trump sweeps most of the SuperTuesday primary elections, it can be expected that Trump’s polling number will surpass 50% or perhaps even more than that. Much more, probably, because in American politics, power compounds itself to even more power.

    If the above-described scenario works out more or less as described, Republican governors, US Senators and members of the House of Representatives, and various others, will all follow the governors of New Jersey, Maine and Senator Sessions of Alabama will lose no time in announcing their support of Trump, and most will do so at one of his numerous public events with their multitudes of cheering Trump fans.

    I have watched a number of these events from live coverage, and I marvel at the way he draws power from tens of thousands of people in such events. This is a phenomenon rarely scene in American politics anymore, and I think that because of that and other surprising but relevant considerations of this election, Trump will end Hillary Clinton’s political career.

    Stay tuned.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  28. @ bernard ross:I read that if that happens it would be much harder for her to win.

    If Bloomberg runs and wins NY or another state or two the race would go the House of Representatives probably because no one win 270 electoral votes. That said I do not think Bloomberg will run.

    I am not a Trump fan but he should be better than Hillary.

  29. History of the United States Republican Party
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President (1861–1865).

    The Republican Party, also commonly called the GOP (for “Grand Old Party”), is one of the world’s oldest political parties still in existence, the second oldest existing political party in the United States after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy. The Party had almost no presence in the South, but by 1858 in the North it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.

    With its election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and its success in guiding the Union to victory and abolishing slavery, the party came to dominate the national political scene until 1932. The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, small business owners, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs to protect factory workers and grow industry faster.

    Under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, it emphasized an expansive foreign policy. The GOP lost its majorities during the Great Depression (1929–40). Instead, the Democrats under Franklin D. Roosevelt formed a winning “New Deal” coalition, which was dominant from 1932 through 1964. That coalition collapsed in the mid-1960s, partly because of white Southern Democrats’ disaffection with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans resurged, winning five of the six presidential elections 1968 to 1988, with Ronald Reagan as the party’s iconic conservative hero. In recent times though, from 1992 to 2012, the Republican candidate has been elected to the White House in only two of the six presidential elections—and only in one out of those six elections, in 2004, did he win the popular vote.

    The GOP expanded its base throughout the South after 1968 (excepting 1976), largely due to its strength among socially conservative white Evangelical Protestants and traditionalist Roman Catholics. As white Democrats in the South lost dominance of the Democratic Party once U.S. courts declared the Democratic White Primary elections unconstitutional, the region began more taking on the two-party apparatus which characterized most of the nation. The Republican Party’s central leader by 1980 was Ronald Reagan, whose conservative policies called for reduced government spending and regulation, lower taxes, and a strong anti-Soviet foreign policy. His iconic status in the party persists into the 21st century, as practically all GOP leaders acknowledge his stature. Social scientists Theodore Caplow et al. argue, “The Republican party, nationally, moved from right-center toward the center in 1940s and 1950s, then moved right again in the 1970s and 1980s.“[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

  30. Don’t Assume Conservatives Will Rally Behind Trump

    If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, he’ll have undermined a lot of assumptions we once held about the GOP. He’ll have become the nominee despite neither being reliably conservative nor being very electable, supposedly the two things Republicans care most about. He’ll have done it with very little support from “party elites” (although with some recent exceptions like Chris Christie). He’ll have attacked the Republican Party’s three previous candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush — without many consequences. If a Trump nomination happens, it will imply that the Republican Party has been weakened and is perhaps even on the brink of failure, unable to coordinate on a plan to stop Trump despite the existential threat he poses to it.

    Major partisan realignments do happen in America — on average about once every 40 years. The last one, which involved the unwinding of the New Deal coalition between Northern and Southern Democrats, is variously dated as having occurred in 1968, 1972 and 1980. There are also a lot of false alarms, elections described as realignments that turn out not to be. This time, we really might be in the midst of one. It’s almost impossible to reconcile this year’s Republican nomination contest with anyone’s notion of “politics as usual.”

    If a realignment is underway, then it poses a big empirical challenge. Presidential elections already suffer from the problem of small sample sizes — one reason a lot of people, certainly including us, shouldn’t have been so dismissive of Trump’s chances early on. Elections held in the midst of political realignments are even rarer, however. The rules of the old regime — the American political party system circa 1980 through 2012 — might not apply in the new one. And yet, it’s those elections that inform both the conventional wisdom and statistical models of American political behavior.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be completely in the dark. For one thing, the polls — although there’s reason to be concerned about their condition in the long-term — have been reasonably accurate so far in the primaries. And some of the old rules will still apply. It’s probably fair to guess that Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote similarly, for example.

    Still, one should be careful about one’s assumptions. For instance, the assumption that the parties will rally behind their respective nominees may or may not be reliable. True, recent elections have had very little voting across party lines: 93 percent of Republicans who voted in 2012 supported Romney, for example, despite complaints from the base that he was insufficiently conservative. And in November 2008, some 89 percent of Democrats who voted supported Barack Obama after his long battle with Hillary Clinton.

    But we may be entering a new era, and through the broader sweep of American history, there’s sometimes been quite a bit of voting across party lines. The table below reflects, in each election since 1952, what share of a party’s voters voted against their party’s presidential candidate (e.g., a Democrat voting Republican or for a third-party ticket). There’s a lot of fascinating political history embedded in the table, but one theme is that divisive nominations have consequences.
    ELECTION DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
    1952 23% 8%
    1956 15 4
    1960 16 5
    1964 13 20
    1968 26 14
    1972 33 5
    1976 20 11
    1980 33 15
    1984 26 7
    1988 17 8
    1992 23 27
    1996 15 19
    2000 13 9
    2004 11 7
    2008 11 10
    2012 8 7
    Share of party’s voters voting against its presidential candidate

    Sources: Gallup (1952-1972), National Exit Polls (1976-2012)

    In 1972, for instance, about a third of Democrats voted for Richard Nixon rather than George McGovern, who won the Democratic nomination despite getting only about a quarter of the popular vote during the primaries. The Democrats’ tumultuous nomination process in 1968 was nearly as bad, with many defections to both Nixon and George Wallace. The 1964 Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater produced quite a few defections. Primary challenges to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 presaged high levels of inter-party voting in November.

    There are also some exceptions; Republicans remained relatively united behind Gerald Ford in 1976 despite a primary challenge from Ronald Reagan. And there were high levels of Democratic unity behind Obama in 2008, although one can argue that a party having two good choices is a much lesser problem than it having none it can agree upon.

    Overall, however, the degree of party unity during the primaries is one of the better historical predictors of the November outcome. That could be a problem for Republicans whether they nominate Trump or turn around and nominate Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or John Kasich; significant numbers of GOP voters are likely to be angry either way.

    It doesn’t necessarily mean that Republicans are bound to lose; I’d agree with David Plouffe’s assessment that a general election with Trump on the ballot is hard to predict and that Trump “could lose in a landslide or win narrowly.” But if I wouldn’t bet on an anti-Trump landslide, I’m also not sure I’d bet against one. The presumption that presidential elections are bound to be close is itself based on an uncomfortably small sample size: While three of the four elections since 2000 have been fairly close, most of them between 1952 and 1996 were not. Furthermore, the closeness of recent elections is partly a consequence of intense partisanship, which Trump’s nomination suggests may be fraying. The last partisan realignment, between about 1968 and 1980, produced both some highly competitive elections (1968, 1976) and some blowouts (1972, 1980).

    Although what voters do will ultimately be more important, it will also be worth watching how Republican Party elites behave and how much they unite behind Trump. On Twitter this weekend, there was a lot of activity behind the hashtag #NeverTrump, with various conservative intellectuals and operatives pledging that they’d refuse to support Trump in November. Rubio’s Twitter account employed the hashtag also, although Rubio himself has been ambiguous about whether he’d back Trump.

    It’s reasonably safe to say that some of the people in the #NeverTrump movement will, in fact, wind up supporting Trump. Clinton, very likely the Democratic nominee, is a divisive figure, and some anti-Trump conservatives will conclude that Trump is the lesser of two evils. Others will get caught up in the esprit de corps of the election. Some of them might be reassured by how Trump conducts himself during the general election campaign or whom he picks as his running mate.

    But I’d be equally surprised if there were total capitulation to Trump. Instead, I’d expect quite a bit of resistance from Republican elites. One thing this election has probably taught us is that there are fewer movement conservatives than those within the conservative movement might want to admit. Rank-and-file Republican voters aren’t necessarily all that ideological, and they might buy into some of the Republican platform while rejecting other parts of it. They might care more about Trump’s personality than his policy views.

    But there are certainly some movement conservatives, and they have outsized influence on social media, talk radio, television and in other arenas of political discourse. And if you are a movement conservative, Trump is arguably a pretty terrible choice, taking your conservative party and remaking it in his unpredictable medley of nationalism, populism and big-government Trumpism.

    If you’re one of these ideological conservatives, it may even be in your best interest for Trump to lose in November. If Trump loses, especially by a wide margin, his brand of politics will probably be discredited, or his nomination might look like a strange, one-off “black swan” that you’ll be better equipped to prevent the next time around. You’ll have an opportunity to get your party back in 2020, and your nominee might stand a pretty decent chance against Clinton, who could be elected despite being quite unpopular because Trump is even less popular and who would be aiming for the Democratic Party’s fourth straight term in office.

    But if Trump wins in November, you might as well relocate the Republican National Committee’s headquarters to Trump Tower. The realignment of the Republican Party will be underway, and you’ll have been left out of it.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-assume-conservatives-will-rally-behind-trump/

  31. If Trump selects a good running mate, he will have a good chance. He has to be taking immersion courses to be primed to debate Hilury. She will try to paint Trump as an ignoramus and male chauvinist pig, both charges are wrong, but she will stoop down as low as it goes. Trump has to be ready. My guess is Trump already knows much more than the public believes he knows and is keeping his cards concealed until the right moment. He has shown all indications of making good decisions and having sharp instincts.
    I am not worried at all about his comments about being neutral. He cannot come off as any kind of radical or nut. Sadly, proclaiming to be pro Israel, like Cruz is not politically correct with too damn much of the electorate, especially leftist and left leaning Jews, they are THE WORST, like Sanders, disgusting beyond words. Nevertheless, winning the election means capturing the center and marginally left of center, like what Bill Clinton and Reagan did so well. Hilury will try to appeal to these voters heavily.
    Parroting Cruz on ripping up the Iran Deal Disaster, as much it those lines appeal to me, would be playing into Clinton’s hands, imo. However Trump has stated he is considering moving the embassy, which may be a signal that he will adopt Cruz positions, fine and dandy.

  32. When Trump says he wants to make America great again I believe This comes from his heart and is not a political sound bite from his brain.Not being beholden to any group he can make decisions in the best interest of the country . Establishment politicians of both parties hate him because of fear of losing their jobs as well as going to jail.He has also raised issues which the other candidates have feared to go.And it seems that the more he is attacked by the establishment the more votes he picks up.

  33. If I were Trump I would develop a strategy for separating out my decisions as a businessman in my prior life from my decisions as the president. As a businessman he was not employed by the american people to serve their interest… he was employed to fulfill the american dream to serve his own with the obligation and duty to obey the law and serve the interests of his investors and finaciers…. as an entrepreneur he left, like everyone else, the running of the country to the professional pols like Hillary, Sanders, Cruz and Rubio who are elected and PAID to serve the american people and NOT donor interests. It is only their abject failure which brought him out to run for the position of pres. Now, if given the position of pres he will serve the interests of his new shareholders and investors, the american people.