ICYMI: Trump lost his 12th state in 13 tries. But it’s how he loses them that’s intriguing. We’ll walk you step by step how we just never put his team on the field. We also go behind the scenes of the looming battlegrounds in New York and California with Ron Nehring. And getting out the Jewish and Milennial vote with Melissa Jane Kronfeld:
When Donald Trump looks back at the wasted time and money he put forward in producing the biggest flame-out in Presidential nominating history, he’s going to easily be able to point to exactly where he lost it.
I’ve long thought of elections as similar to prize fights or NFL football match-ups. And if that’s the case Trump keeps complaining that he doesn’t get acknowledged for gaining yardage, when the purpose of the game is to score points.
For the third or fourth time in a row now, Trump basically abandoned his team on the ground in a state where he presumably wishes to win delegates. Wyoming is poised to deliver the final 14 delegates of their state’s delegation this weekend.
Ted Cruz is jetting over to make a speech to the convention (like he did in North Dakota, Iowa, and Colorado.) Trump decided to stay home in New York (where he’s going to easily win his home state on Tuesday to do? Only God knows what…
But what he’s NOT doing is going to a state where delegates are in play, where he could go make a speech, where he could seek to get voters to listen to his ideas, and try to actually earn delegates.
Evidently he didn’t even care enough about even TRYING to win delegates that he failed to help his state organizers field a full slate for the 14 spots that are open.
UNDECIDED got six times more delegates elected to the final ballot than Trump did.
And I’m pretty sure UNDECIDED spent less money than Trump did.
Notice what the attendee said in the second sentence. “No list for Trump yet.”
Meaning Donald’s team–because they were too uninterested–couldn’t be bothered with sending an intern to Kinkos to photo copy a list of names (all five that they slotted.)
Couple that with The Trump team decision not to take his private jet for a quick jaunt to Wyoming to give a short speech and say, “Please vote for my delegates, I’ll make Wyoming and America great again,” and then shuttling back to New York where he leads by 35+ points?
Well at least send one of your high profile, conservative friendly surrogates right?
The campaign said the processes don’t work for them?
Of course they don’t geniuses. Because the candidate is supposed to be the one doing the work… You know… To EARN the votes of the people?
It seems increasingly that Donald doesn’t like to court the votes of the “little people.” He doesn’t seem to feel like he should be required to go out and earn the votes of the nominating process across 54 states and territories.
He seems lazy and entitled.
And while he wonders why he will have lost 12 of the last 13 contests for delegates. The proof is in the work–or the lack thereof–that he just seems disdained to do.
Cruz is getting his brains beaten in in New York, but he’s still there campaigning. He campaigned in Florida, and in South Carolina and every state where the polls showed Donald ahead. Cruz believes that he should respect the voters and go to them and try as best he can to earn their support.
Donald just ignores whole sections of the nation and then whines like a petty school girl when the people that he shunned (and later slanders) didn’t just rush to his support.
He should stop “wondering” and start “working,” if he really TRULY wants to represent the majority of Republicans in the Presidential race.
Earlier on Friday I released the deepest number crunching I have done in any Presidential cycle of my lifetime.
With only really one true optimistic finish for Ted Cruz in only one state, and very generous and favorable outcomes for Donald in many of the ones expected, I still had a fairly solid hunch that I am not far off.
Headed into the convention in Cleveland:
Ted Cruz: 1198
Donald Trump: 1131
As I pondered this potential I felt as though I just wanted a second set of eyes before I published it.
From two Trump-leaning analysts, and two Cruz-leaning analysts, the response was unanimous: “Seems strange after all this time of Donald leading… But not at all far fetched!”
This isn’t going to please the Trump supporters in my networks, but some of the people in your own camp were the ones that confirmed for me the rationale I used in coming to these landing spots.
I then headed over to see what Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight boys were seeing. Sure enough they were spotting the same thing I was and downgrading their original “easiest path” for Trump to 1237 considerably.
They had projected Trump to win Wisconsin, they had him leaning in Indiana, and they had him projected better in California and New Mexico. (Donald only hired a California delegate recruiter this week. Cruz has had one for almost a year and it took him almost five months to get a full slate (169 delegates/169 alternates) for the 53 contests that vote there.)
But Silver’s reworking of the numbers did not improve Trump’s outlook. And while some of the contests in the Northeast may hit original FiveThirtyEight’s estimates, because of the losses in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah and likely close to shut outs in Indiana and Nebraska, now Trump has to beat projections from earlier.
All told by Nate Silver’s “best case/least resistance scenario” for Trump puts him at -47 or so delegates. His “deterministic” projections (based on the strictest polling evidence available) puts Trump somewhere in the -82 or so delegate range behind projections needed.
My spread to 1237 is 106, but the more likely “who will have the lead” issue on my spread is 67.
So I’m not terribly far off from the most accurate predictor of the modern era.
But here’s the larger point: two candidates will arrive in Cleveland with roughly 1100 delegates. The one who will most likely be the nominee will be one who knows the rules best and builds the strongest relationships.
And that’s NOT likely to be the team that has whined like a school girl when losing and yelling taunts and insults at everybody while winning.
People matter… Relationships matter… Character matters… And knowledge matters.
Should be an interesting next few weeks!
For the past three days Donald Trump has lied about the good people of Colorado. He has maligned the entirety of the grassroots voters in that state. He has questioned their choices. He has sided with those who have now been proven to have fabricated stories of harrassment, exclusion, and prejudice.
He was about to get away with it. No media had called him out on it. But the truth of what happened in Colorado is there for anyone who cares to know the truth.
And all you have to do to know it for yourself is listen:
All the grossly immoral, reprobate, disgusting piggish ugly nastiness that the tawdry scandals implied for one candidate turned out to be 100% true.
I knew he protested too much. I knew that he was squealing a little too much like a stuck pig.
I don’t know how women can stand behind the “man” but one thing is for sure. He’s a nasty, na-sty, na-sty, guy…
Donald J. Trump.
Oh you thought I was referring to someone else? Why would I be? There is ZERO evidence of any other current presidential candidate ever having stepped out on his wife.
But we know that Trump did… multiple times.
But that wasn’t the nastiness I was referring to. The grossly immoral reprobate stuff is how he attempted to pretend he didn’t have anything to do with the affair accusations against Ted Cruz. But it turns out he did. His campaign even echoing the softly peddled, and completely unsubstantiated rumors through social media this week with some weird video claiming that one of the randomly pictured women in the National Enquirer story once “wore” a “suit jacket” that belonged to Senator Cruz.
Everyone knows how immoral it is for a true man to offer his suit jacket to a woman who may be freezing in one of those big event ballrooms at a hotel and such.
I somehow missed that the woman in question appeared on Jake Tapper last week and completely repudiated the claims made against her. A woman I’ve always believed to be honorable, God fearing, and an amazingly dedicated mother and wife (especially while leaving in and amongst the slimey non-human animal life forms in Washington DC) was wrongfully accused. What I appreciated most is that she didn’t merely repudiate the claims but went further to assert her life’s priorities and her ultimate goals in life.
So… to be clear #TrumpTrain did play a role in advancing these sick rumors, and attempted to slime good people. And for those who still claim otherwise–everyone involved is STILL considering legal action against those who are found to have been responsible for the smears.
But that’s only PART of the sleazy sickness that pervades the cesspool of Donald Trump’s mind and operations.
I mean lest we forget–he left two women he was married to–for *new* women to be in bed with.
I know that secular minded–non-morally bothered–people don’t seem to get worked up about it. But if you break your commitment to the person you supposedly love more in this life than anyone else… Heh?
But evidently there is another grotesque sickness he has exhibited and publicly joked about on multiple occasions: the sexual prowess of his daughters.
And not just ONE of his daughters, but BOTH of his daughters…
Honest to Pete, he just can’t let it go…
Seriously… it’s ALWAYS on his brain… especially as it relates to her!
It’s just always on his mind…
I’d like to issue a bit of a call to my fellow conservatives who have been sold (largely by rabid Tumpkins) that the GOP is out to work over the voters of their party.
“Calm down… it’s not going to be what they keep telling you it is going to be.”
I’ll admit I have regular bouts of insane conversations with conspiracy nuts who absolutely believe the GOP is trying to steal the election. They are almost 100% of the time Trump supporters, and they are doing it for a variety of reasons.
- Some are utterly ignorant of the process. Some of the loudest voices online and sadly on-air are those who feel like they’ve only been “allowed in” to the process for the first time in their lives in 2016. When asked about reasons why they’ve never voted before they say things like, “Oh yeah, well I was in the army, what’d you ever do for your country?” Great to know, but I don’t think being in uniform ever made you not vote. These folks “feel like” Trump is finally saying the things they’ve always wanted their elected leaders to say. The problem is they don’t know the other half of all things he’s said (even on the campaign trail) that completely contradict what they think he said that they liked. They don’t know how delegates are selected. They believe there shouldn’t even be a convention. And they think we all live in a democracy.
- Some believe the smears. As was evident in his campaign statement last night following his catastrophic loss in Wisconsin, the REAL Donald Trump is never far off from a tongue lashing especially if he got his third grade feelings hurt. So he says things, approves of things, and admits things aren’t true but allows, says, and admits them anyway because he’s angry. His most pure-hearted followers have forgiven him his many missteps in this areas because they are honest to goodness tired of the status quo and they are willing to put up with the non-sense even though they know its morally depraved. They’ve drank the kool-aid and believe that Donald really is being targeted by the media (in ways other conservatives haven’t been) and that they have to support this guy no matter who he smears merely to attempt the reform they genuinely want to see come about.
- Some completely know better but go along with it anyway. This is the group I really have a hard time with. Some of them have worked in politics. Some haven’t. Some have a book to sell, or media appearances to gain from this position so to heck with the commitment to conservative ideas and pushing forward the solutions that will help America. Some honestly believed Trump would turn out different, but now that they (and the world) see that he isn’t they are just unable to bring themselves to reverse course–hoping all along against hope itself that Trump isn’t going to wind up being even half as bad as he has been thus far.
Last night after the results were coming in, people in all three of the categories above believe they found the “smoking gun” that proves the theories that the GOP is out to steal the nomination process out from under the millions of voters who have put their hearts into 2016.
Reince Priebus is asked a simple few questions from Sean Hannity. Reince answers in a little bit of a clumsy way but he more or less assures the viewer of a few things:
- The GOP nominee will be required to assemble the 1237 delegate votes from the floor of the convention.
- The nominee will have to be someone who is “running.” (This effectively eliminates the helicopter candidate theory.)
- The nominee will have to live up to the bare minimum of Rule40b and win a majority of delegates in at least 8 states.
- The nominee will be one of the three men running in the race at present.
It’s that 4th assertion that Hannity (and every nutty Trumpkin in Trumpkinland) immediately jumped on.
“Ah hah!!!” they say, “See Priebus is indicating he’s going to insert John Kasich as the nominee.”
But there is zero evidence that Priebus is doing this, and even less evidence that he has any intention of doing it.
What he said was, “the nominee will be someone who is running, satisfies Rule40b, and reaches 1237.”
“Butttttttt Kev,” they respond breathlessly. “Kasich hasn’t hit the qualifications for Rule40b. Only Trump has,” they say.
Like I said, “Just… calm… down…”
Kasich as of today has not yet hit a majority in 8 states. He has hit a majority of delegates in 1 state. Which means he would need to hit the majority in seven more states before he qualifies.
But there are 19 more contests to go.
Suppose Le Tour de l’énorme infantile Terrible (#TrumpTrain) continues to implode. Suppose Kasich hits a hot streak in the Northeast and takes several states from Trump. How foolish would Priebus have looked in promising to only allow Cruz or Trump to be on the ballot at the convention if Kasich–by some miracle of the divine–garnered seven more delegate majorities?
It would have been WRONG for Priebus to promise to not let Kasich be in consideration if he has met the requirements–and with 19 states to go–anything could still happen.
Also realize this, by answering as he did, he also eliminated the possibility or smokey-deal-back-room muck that Trumpkins keep peddling. Jeb, Kasich, Ryan, nor Rubio are not going to be eligible for the second ballot because right now only two candidates have picked up delegate majorities in 8 or more states.
And for the record likely BOTH will add to the numbers they currently have. Presently Trump has delegate majorities in 10 states, Cruz has 9 states.
Had Sean changed the question to “If the convention were held today, would there be three people eligible for nomination.” And Priebus had said, “yes.” That would have been an actual “gotcha.”
But according to the rules that govern the process, according to the rules they all agreed to follow, and according to the expectation that the rules will not be pulled out from under everyone at the last minute…
Priebus answered exactly as he should have.
And even Trumpkins can take comfort in that!
It’s getting pretty tiring.
As we move closer to the GOP convention this summer, there is an increasing likelihood that GOP voters will face an unusual process.
The possibility of this process–I am constantly reminded–had “better be” determined by the voters.
Words like brokered and contested and open and fixed keep getting interchanged with one another. Most importantly, supporters of one candidate, also throw in an assumption–that what all those terms refer to is not only something the voters don’t have say over but that the process assumes those things are crooked and governed without rules.
Add to that the public idiocy of an unnamed GOP official who was dumb enough to tell a news outlet that the voting public doesn’t decide the nominee for the party, but that the party does.
It’s an idiotic thing to say because it’s both true and said in the most confusing way possible.
It’s true in that it’s not the voters themselves that cast the ballots to nominate the candidate. It is the delegates of the party who do. But it is the voters in caucuses and primaries whose votes secure the first ballot delegates that cast the vote for the nomination.
Simply because the party can’t accommodate several million citizens at its convention doesn’t mean in any way that the vote of the citizen doesn’t matter. The idea of having representatives act on your behalf is the core essence of our “representative republic.”
I know–there may be much great shock when supporters of one candidate in particular hear for the first time that we don’t live in a democracy.
But we don’t. So get over it and move on.
The larger point is that a voter in a primary voluntarily chooses to participate with a private non-profit organization that holds a convention every four years, established through the will of its delegates what it’s platform and governing rules will be for the next four years, and also chooses who will represent that party to stand on the ballot of the general election.
Yesterday one candidate implied that if he comes in to the convention lacking the necessary delegate support to be nominated that he should be in essence “given” the nomination in complete non-compliance with the rules of the convention. He argued in essence that he deserved special “dispensation” or treatment because he’s who he is.
He also went so far as to imply that if he is not granted such special treatment that his supporters would be justified in reacting with violence.
Violence has been a big theme of his. Some 30 protestors have been seriously injured at his rallies. And his reaction to protestors has been to encourage his supporters to “punch them in the face” or to “knock the crap out of them” or to “knock ’em the hell out.” This direct encouragement to escalate the violence has been followed by the declaration that he “promised” to “pay the legal bills” he “promised… he promises.”
Given that as his history to now basically blanket his supporters with permission to become violent at the convention because he first lacks the necessary votes and secondly doesn’t meet the criteria is sickening.
Of course his followers believe it’s great. Literally on the social media feed of a “friend” I had a Trump supporter first threaten to KTFO of folks at the convention. (Knock the f&$k out.) And when called out on it was ready to don the gloves and “box” me at a place and time. I left the conversation for two reasons. I only talk to blocks of wood that I’m splitting into kindling. And… Well you know what they say about people who have to brag…
But I digress.
Across social media, my radio audiences, and correspondence from Fox viewers, the repeated meme that these types of supporters of said candidate continually say is that this had better not end up in a “contested convention.”
Only one problem.
It probably is.
But contested is not the same as corrupt.
Everyone talks about the number 1237. Trump called it a “random” number set by “some guy.”
It’s anything but.
1236 is exactly 50% of the nominating delegates needed to be nominated.
The rules of the GOP nomination process–as determined by previous convention delegates that were elected by the people/voters–said that in order to be given the nomination automatically that a candidate would need “50% plus 1 vote.”
In other words a majority.
In terms of percent it works out to 50.19% of the total delegates available.
Why did the past elected delegates to the previous convention(s) decide that 50.19% was the needed amount? We’d have to ask them.
But likely it was something to do with integrity.
The desire to be able to honestly say that the “majority” of the voices of the elected delegates of the voters themselves were being adhered to.
Why is that?
So that they can go back to those same voters and explain that as they promised in their founding the party of Lincoln and Reagan would abide by “the will of the people.”
In an elected body of representatives it can not be asserted that the will of *most* of the people is done without achieving a majority.
So back to the scenario. What should happen if the delegates fall short of the majority.
It’s very simple, the campaign continues.
The candidates speak, the campaign’s call one another and if a majority does not exist on the first ballot, then one is sought on the second or third or fourth ballot.
Coalitions are formed and cooperation ensues to put forward a nominee/ticket that satisfies the requirements of speaking for the majority of the party.
The biggest point to understand that this process is lawful, is governed by rules the candidates have already (even this far out) agreed to, and has been in place since the last convention.
If the candidate fails to rally his turnout and get majorities in the primaries and caucuses then it’s unlikely that he/she will get a majority on the first ballot at the convention.
Other nations like Israel face constant coalition building in order to maintain lawfully elected governments. We in the United States are not used to it because candidates usually rack up the delegates so early. And there are usually fewer candidates still in this late in the process.
But the GOP has four candidates that now have more than 100 delegates. In fact 1300+ of the delegates have been gobbled up. The chance that someone under 700 delegates this late in the process will get to see 1237 grows increasingly unlikely.
But it does not mean that following the lawfully and duly elected process of what happens according to the rules is in any way corrupt.
Because it’s not.
It is in fact preventing the “establishment” from doing exactly what so many Trump supporters are saying will be done.
And this final note: if the GOP were stupid enough to go into back room negotiations and attempt to insert someone who had not won any states in a “brokered fix” to solve the dilemma. That would be corrupt, and I don’t care who the nominee would be that they would attempt to insert, I would join forces with the Trump supporters and set fire to the convention personally.
But a contested convention is not the same as a brokered convention and everyone needs to take a deep breath and wait to see if we even need one.
And it would help Make America Great Again if A certain candidate would shut his flap and stop encouraging his people to punch, knock and riot when things don’t go his way. Truly!
Why are 32% of the Evangelicals who are voting supporting Donald Trump in the primary season this year?
Kevin? What? How can you say only 32% of Evangelicals are supporting the Trumpster?
Because that’s the way it is.
68% of Evangelicals are opposing him. And 70% of Republicans are opposing him. In fact IF he wins the nomination, he is at this point poised to do it with a lower percentage of the vote than Romney and McCain COMBINED.
And since Marco Rubio is losing Florida to Trump he should drop out and make this a true two man race.
But all that aside, my friend and fellow broadcast colleague at Salem Media Group – Steve Deace penned a superb analysis for actual evangelicals and their supposed support for the Trump, what it means, and why it is important.
We get into a lot of other items as well. And I want every one of you to buy his new book A NEFARIOUS PLOT.
But here’s a preview, and some pretty “yuggggggge” Binge Thinking for tonight:
I believe I have struck the solution that the GOP is looking for. The anxiety of the current 70% of the GOP electorate that does not support Mr. Trump has a way of being assuaged.
Of course that will require less megalomania and more leadership from the “‘Merica Eff-yeah” front runner.
But since I love to pose solutions to problems I believe many grassroots fears could be solved, then the Trump-identified-poorly-educated supporters could still say “‘Merica Eff-yeah” and the decent people in society could actually feel that their nation wasn’t being wholly co-opted for the worst piece if reality television in history.
I pose this solution because without some concessions on Anti-Trumper’s parts the bitterness that the electorate put forward a grown man with the temperament and vocabulary of a 3rd grader in the midst of the most accomplished, talented and dignified class of candidates the GOP has had in my lifetime will eat away at them like a cancer.
And since (even though he hasn’t figured it out yet) Trump needs the anti-trump GOP to support him vs Hillary, this solution might soothe tattered nerves, rattled sensibilities, and help the dignified people who don’t tell China to “eff themselves” some degree of justification for pulling the lever for the only man to ever run for office completely devoid of a worldview and conscience.
So here goes:
I absolutely believe that–given the energized turnout of the GOP primary–Donald can beat Hillary IF, IF, IF, he reaches out to those he’s offended.
For three reasons:
1. Hillary is the worst front runner the Dems have put forward in 50 years. (Think about the Charisma that Obama had…)
2. Even apart from her awful personality, she is vulnerable on fifty fronts… Exaggeration… But she has LOTS of weaknesses.
3. The energy and anger in the grassroots is setting records in every primary for the GOP. The Dems are recording record low enthusiasm for their process, the GOP is ready to burn down everything standing in DC and its reflected in 4 straight record turnouts, where second and third place finishes would’ve won any other year.
I have believed from the beginning whoever won South Carolina would win the nomination. That clearly is going to be Trump.
SO HERE’S the Grand Wager: I said months ago that because of the talent that was in the GOP field they should run the entire field as “the ticket/the cabinet.”
So Trump gets to play CEO. And his supporters keep telling us that he is the greatest delegater that has EVER come along.
Trump names Rubio as his running mate. Marco is the most likable candidate running. He’s too young to be the top dog. But he is a tea-party, establishment, and conservative appeal on the ticket that would be the ultimate “outsider” ticket in history. You also accomplish that very important goal of putting the most liked Hispanic on the ticket.
Trump names Cruz to the Supreme Court. The death of Scalia and the vapid emptiness of constitutional adherence that is in the courts presently scare conservatives literally to death. Cruz is the foremost constitutional scholar in the race. He’s actually argued and won 5 cases at the Supreme Court. He memorized it when he was 18. He lives and breathes to be its biggest defender. And he would be a JUST replacement for the former lion of the chamber. Cruz fans understand how this would in someways insure America’s constitutionality long past the Trump era.
With his two biggest rivals now turned into his two most important wing-men he would capture 95% of the GOP vote and have loyalty at every position.
He’ll probably also name a number of other candidates–Governors especially–to cabinet posts. Cristie is a shoo-in for Attorney General, Kasich is a natural for Labor Secretary, Fiorina for Secretary of State or Commerce Secretary, Carson for Surgeon General, Huckabee as Director of Faith Based Initiatives, Santorum as National Security Administration, Walker as Education Secretary, Jindal as Secretary of Agriculture…
Just suggestions but you see how deep the bench is.
If Trump is a serious patriot. This suggestion has rigorous merit. And it would silence a great deal of the worry that the anti-Trump universe has towards his recent conversion to “conservatism.”
And if he REALLY loves America, and REALLY loves the conservative ideals that have given her the greatness she has displayed, this is a win for all!
On the night that Donald Trump won New Hampshire the most important poll that could be taken was one he flatly denies exists.
Trump, “We don’t do internal polling.”
He does and has and will.
But on election night in New Hampshire he was at a whopping 44% in the internal Trump polls.
As of Tuesday of this week sources tell me that number was 28% and had not yet bottomed out.
Now the public polls–which have curiously the same problem in South Carolina that they had in Iowa–were all lagging behind the internals at Team Trump.
But they did show something fairly amazing.
They all began to drop–just like in Iowa.
39 became 37 became 34 became 31.
Until this morning when the Wall Street Journal/NBC for the second day in a row revealed a polling out come that documented the Trump free fall. And their number on their most up-to-date South Carolina poll?
The number that the Trump forces knew about three days before.
Students of political science learn early on in watching elections that the polls may or may not get it right. A lot depends on how they are set up, targeted, modeled and understood.
In Iowa the polls consistently predicted larger than conceivable turnouts. They projected 200-300,000 caucus goers. The previous all time record was somewhere in the 130,000 area, and while Iowa turned out massive turnout, the final number was near 160,000. They also under polled evangelicals. Considerably. So Iowa turned out to be a surprise.
In South Carolina the polls are predicting larger than conceivable turnout models 1.4-2.2 million in some of them. I believe 700,000 would set a new record. They are also again vastly under counting evangelical turnout. By maybe as much as 11%.
This is why students of politics shouldn’t be paying attention to final percentages in final polls but rather that should be measuring momentum.
Trump forces don’t want to hear this. But Donald has been in free fall since New Hampshire. His erratic self-damning temper tantrum at the South Carolina debate where he espoused Code Pink, re-embraced Planned Parenthood, and attacked President Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003, when he himself had voiced support for the invasion in September of 2002 all exposed an irrational inability to deal with cognitive dissonance (of being wrong). And this added to the free fall.
Trump’s self-inflicted wounds in South Carolina, much like his erratic behavior of skipping the Iowa debate and dissing the GOP voters, are about to unleash a repeat disappointment to the Trump supporters.
If you study the newest NBC & FOX polls–one conservative and one liberal news outlets (not really but that’s how the activists see them) there is a similar issue of momentum occurring for a candidate to the positive.
Note that since December Trump’s number has been flagging. But since he was the national polling front runner he should have been out front in December. Then Iowa and New Hampshire happened and he was riding a big victory into South Carolina.
But what has actually happened?
Ted Cruz took the big win in Iowa and outperformed again in New Hampshire.
Now note not the number but the direction of Cruz’s numbers in the evangelical chart above.
Trump is minus 3, Cruz is +8.
Cruz’s momentum has more than twice the intensity in the most undercounted demographic as does the free fall of Trump.
And things fall easier than they climb.
Trump has seen his internals on this for a while. He of course will blame it on others.
But Saturday is going to be an unhappy night for him. Because even if he wins it will be closer than he ever imagined when he gave his victory speech in New Hampshire.
And I don’t think he is going to win.
Goodness has been a hard thing to see in the election of 2016.
Most of the reason is because we haven’t demanded it from the candidates.
The two front-runners of each party have lied to the voters repeatedly. Pretty much about everything, every day, every time.
Couple that with the entire “Make America GREAT Again” theme and a major deception is being played out. “Winning” has become the priority, but we have replaced what winning used to mean with more or less “getting our way.”
As I am in the midst of raising sons my thoughts quickly revert in these moments to what I want my boys to take away from this moment in history.
Is it the picture of a man telling his political opponents or his global competitors to go “fxxx” themselves? Is it to follow a man who said as recently as Saturday night that the number one abortionist in America (384,000 abortions annually that we paid $1600 apiece for as taxpayers) does “wonderful things?”
What do I want my sons to take away from the election?
Is it that it’s ok to lie to the American people about building a wall when he already knows he will not build it and that Mexico will never pay for it? Is it ok to lie about it because as he points out in his book The Art Of The Deal, every negotiation has to start out with something so fantastic and huge that no one has the strength to call you out on it?
Our founders, many of whom I doubt Donald Trump has ever read much less taken to heart talked at length about America’s greatness being tied to her willingness to use her financial and military strength to also be GOOD!
When no one else will…
The video above details exactly what they looks like.
Many Trump-protectors (think pocket protectors with far more foul language) have been criticizing those who have attempted to be objective about the Presidential primary thus far as being those who favor “circular fire” within the GOP camp.
Perhaps it would be far more honest and somewhat fairly obvious to the watching world if we made mention that the biggest supplier of circular fire in the GOP primary to date has come from one Donald J. Trump.
The world’s most cravenly hungry abuser of eminent domain has set his gaze on every other Republican in the race with a desire to punish them and put them in their place.
He has lied, flip-flopped, and betrayed the sincere ugliness of his inner self in doing so.
His perverse desire to not just win the nomination but to seemingly injure every person who honestly cites his record has a sickness and pathology to it. A fellow republican brings up the fact that he himself has advocated for single-payer healthcare, and instead of refuting the observation, Trump makes public some oblique reference to the person’s childhood. (Remember that distasteful public display regarding Dr. Ben Carson and a belt buckle?)
It is ugly, and unwinsome.
Trump supporters justify staying “on his good side” for various reasons. Prominent former conservatives have sold their soul to sell their book on illegal immigration. Former tea-party champions do so to make a burst into the campaign trail. And other do so to perhaps secure an enormous donation for their university or mega-church.
Other supporters have read Trump’s newest book and come away with the impression that Trump is super man who will bend the known universe to his will. I understand this group of supporters because they want America to be strong and are tired of abject capitulation that the current White House exhibits without end.
One more strain of supporters I actually feel badly for. They have been completely co-opted by the most effective marketer to have ever run for President.
In Trump’s much-bragged-about Art Of The Deal he not only details his often previously bragged about immoral bedding habits, but his strategy of how to close the hard to close deals.
A simple idea of which is – lob a starting point that you know you will never fulfill, but make it so big that the people you are competing against in the effort have no ability to counter. Once they’re back on their heels you can finally tell them what your real offer is.
This idea has played on people’s fears in the election of 2016. Trump has outright promised something he knows he will never deliver.
This tactic is the most sinister of the liberal Trump’s machinations. For it is exactly how liberal democrats campaign. They con the lowest low-information voters available. They get them all worked up. They make sweeping promises, with almost zero details, then when elected, they bait and switch for something else.
When you think about it, what do ANY of us actually know about Trump’s actual plans for once he’s in office? We’ve seen no specifics. “Winning again, and being great again,” is not a policy plan.
Last excuse that previously level-headed conservatives continue to say to me is, “Kevin we just have to win in 2016.”
They say this as though Trump is the only top tier GOP candidate who outpolls Hillary and Bernie.
The inverse is actually true. Cruz and Rubio both beat Hillary head to head and Trump is the one who loses to her.
So when GOP voters chide you for circular fire (for just honestly pointing out his desire to expand Obamacare to single-payer, or being Planned Parenthood’s “man” in 2015, or knowing he will not “build a wall” no matter how many times he claims to) remind them that he fires on more Republicans than the rest of the field combined. Because this isn’t about America this is about him.
When Trump supporters claim he’s anti-establishment, ask them how. Then remind them that he’s the most omni-establishment person to ever run. He’s paid off everybody, everywhere, just to get his way. Because this isn’t about America this is about him.
When Trump supporters promise you he’s going to forever and immediately stop illegal immigration by “building the wall and force Mexico to pay for it” simply ask them how he has demonstrated that he can do it. Ask them also if they’ve studied his negotiation tactics and why he regularly uses huge lies to dislocate the conversation. But he doesn’t have to tell the truth because this isn’t about America, this is about him.
When the low-information start making spittle fly in their inability to come up with one policy position they have any detail on, remember this isn’t about America, it’s about him.
And when you point out that he’s the second most disliked person in the race behind only Hillary herself don’t be surprised if they bring themselves to call you X-rated names for female genitalia (a theme on his campaign evidently.) Just keep in mind that it’s not about America, it’s about him.
And shouldn’t thoughtful people come to expect the same when he appoints Supreme Court judges, argues for economic policy, or asks the government for favor in some situation where he could benefit by getting a piece of property?
We are not at the stage of a general election where the options are limited. There are several principled candidates to choose from. And the entire purpose of a primary process is to vet the best choice possible.
Because the Presidency can not be about any single personality but must always be about what is best for America!
I’m scaring myself how close I’m getting with this stuff!
In 2006, fully two years before it happened and at least 12 months before anyone began to believe it, I predicted that Barack Obama would become President in 2008, and sworn in January 2009. Rush Limbaugh read my prediction on the air, the day after I wrote it at Townhall.com.
Last week in Iowa I said: Cruz would win by around 5, Rubio would surge, Donald would fade, and they’d fight it out for second place. Cruz won by 4, Rubio surged, Trump faded, and they finished one percentage point apart.
Yesterday: Final Poll–ARG–pre-NH-primary (morning of):
- Trump – 33
- Kasich – 17
- Rubio – 14
- Cruz – 10
- Bush – 9
- Christie – 8
My official prediction: “Trump wins but under performs, Cruz and Jeb over perform.”
- Trump – 35 (wins/but over performs)
- Kasich – 16
- Cruz – 12 (over performs)
- Bush – 11 (over performs)
- Rubio – 10
- Christie – 7
My general election prediction said from the beginning that Cruz would win Iowa, Trump would win New Hampshire, and that South Carolina will become a blood bath!
For the next two weeks, for civilized people, for my “friends” on social media, for the sake of the future, it’s about to get as ugly as it can get every 4 years.
I only pray that our republic can survive…
It’s a lot of fun to give people predictions and have them turn out to be correct.
In 2006, before anyone else believed it, I predicted and Rush Limbaugh read my prediction on his show the following morning, that Barack Obama would be President in 2009.
Didn’t like being right on that one but seeing it all happen before it happened still have a shiver down me leg.
Last night was much more enjoyable.
More than a dozen times going into last night’s Iowa Caucus I was asked what I thought would happen.
I never believed the opinion polls that had Trump at 31% the day of the caucuses. Nevertheless everybody from Brit Hume, to Larry Kudlow, to Frank Luntz all predicted Trump had delivered the goods and was taking home the win.
Luntz even said so after hitting the ground in Iowa. And on my friend Mike Gallagher’s show predicted a late night, a close count, and likely a Trump win.
My very dear driend Dr Gina Loudon likewise also told me she expected a tight race and a late night.
I never actually believed it was all that close.
I predicted Cruz would win by around 5%, and that Trump would fade and Rubio surge and battle for 2nd place.
In reality Cruz won by 4% and Trump/Rubio had less than a percentage point between them.
In the aftermath it was obvious that Trump had been humbled, Rubio was inspired, and Cruz relieved. All were exactly appropriate reactions for how the biggest Iowa caucus in their history turned out.
There is also one other resounding message that came from the Iowa results.
THE ESTABLISHMENT GOT CRUSHED!
There is some debate about “who” IS the establishment. Everyone agrees Bush, Christie, Kasich are all “insiders.”
I would also argue Donald J Trump is as well. How else can you interpret his history of paying off politicians, hiring lobbyists, ginning the game of eminent domain, and in general having no political or moral compass until he declared as a candidate for President?
My theory is very much replicated in the endorsements of Bob Dole, and former Mitt Romney and John McCain staffers, etc.
So for my purposes I’ll include Trumps numbers in the following tally as “establishment” votes.
Trump, Bush, Christie, Kasich score 59,000+.
The non-establishment is made up of Tea Party, First Timers, and the Grassroots outcasts:
Cruz, Rubio, Paul are the Tea Partiers.
Carson and Fiorina are the first timers.
Huckabee and Santorum are the grassroots outcasts.
The anti-establishment vote score 129,000+.
IF you include Trump as anti-establishment the score is 13,000 to 155,000+.
Compare this singular unified message that the voters of Iowa are sending to the heavy handed hi-jinx and coin-flips of the other side, and this bodes very well for not just a winning GOP ticket come November, but an excited one, that has passion, and a base that’s ready to go to work for them to win!
Good winds are a blowing…
It’s finally upon us. The final weekend before the official voting gets underway in the 2016 Election. On Monday voters will go to the polls for the first time that counts in the actual race. As of Monday night, we will have an actual front runner. We will have someone who is actually winning the race for delegates–as this year’s caucuses will actually be binding delegates for the Cleveland convention this summer.
All week long we spoke to the candidates. We issued invites for them to come and join us.
The conversations were serious and I believe helpful and contrasting in the minds of listeners and I also believe instructive on where the candidates and campaigns will take the country if elected.
I’ve decided to aggregate the entire week of conversations into a single post. Feel free to not only use it for yourself as a source of reference, but pass it on via social media to those in Iowa in particular who may yet not be decided on who they are at this point supporting.
Thanks to each of the campaigns for participating. Thanks to those who wished to but got to us too late.
I am praying for the outcome on Monday, that it will be good for our nation, and I’m sure you hope and maybe even pray the same.
By the time it actually became news today it was already old.
Sarah Palin was going to endorse Trump.
Listeners to talk radio in New York were calling the Joe Piscopo Show during morning drive convinced it was going to happen.
On my way to the airport in NYC I heard news reports of a private plane leaving Anchorage and heading to Des Moines.
By midday a snarky Cruz staffer had posted a picture on Twitter that supposedly insulted Palin. The picture was Governor Palin standing next to Ted Cruz and the caption read “she knows how to pick winners.”
For some reason Bristol Palin took umbrage to it and went directly to her blog at Patheos and barked out a post about how mean Cruz was and she hoped her mom endorsed Trump just to spite him.
Very dignified Bristol, very dignified.
Then sometime between my take off in NYC and my connection in Phoenix Sarah Palin made it official, she’s throwing in with the Donald.
What he’s promised her, what it holds for her future, nobody knows, but Donald Trump believes he’s taken the final card out of the deck.
To in essence take a mentor of Cruz and to make her betray him, in Donald’s world, this is something he admires.
Color me unimpressed. Unimpressed with the Donald anyway.
Though these formerly conservative women do have me perplexed.
Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, and now Sarah Palin, I used to hold all of them in high regard.
I used to admire them for their unswerving devotion to truth, principle, and good.
I used to ponder how they found the courage to stand in the face of such reprehensible onslaught from the left for the duration of their careers.
But I guess truth doesn’t rank as high for them as it once did, principle is relegated to a sideshow, and truth?
How can they truthfully say that they are willing to fight the good fight and be used like pawns by one of the least principled men to ever rise?
Donald Trump might well become President, he might honestly believe the things he claims he does now. But for women who have spent their public lives and careers noting the inconsistencies of liberals, it seems that they are having a hard time recognizing one right in front of them.
So Ann, Sarah and Phyllis answer me these questions:
- Are you no longer pro-life?
- How can you support a candidate whose record on it is so spotty?
- Are you aware that the Donald was against a single payer health care system before he was for it?
- Do you honestly think Mr. Trump understands the Constitution?
- Do you just enjoy the rush it gives you for a man of that power to use you for his purposes?
- Do you honestly believe he will administrate the nation in the exact same fashion he has campaigned in?
- What about his formerly massive financial support to the Clintons?
- Is there anything related to his ability to flip-flop that bothers you-you ladies of unswerving devotion?
I’m not asking any of these questions as snark. Im genuine. Genuinely baffled at the lack of scruples you are showing in lending your voices to a man who has trouble explaining his way out of a paper bag.
And if you follow through with your support for him Ms. Coulter you owe a lot of genuine conservatives a LOT of apologies.
My only other thought on this is that I honestly believe none of you matter on this issue.
There is little evidence that Donald Trump has brought in ANY new voters into the Republican primary race.
And that means he is likely going to be disappointed on Caucus night in Iowa.
But not nearly as disappointed as I am in what you three have allowed to happen to your otherwise notable service to the conservative movement.
Each of them were believed to be the front runner at different points in this campaign. Are they now entering into “Hail Mary” territory?
My foil–Marjorie Clifton (@MarjorieClifton) and moi (@KMCRadio) discussed.
**Reminder**: The opinions here are not of personal choice and may or may not reflect my own personal wishes as it pertains to candidates.
I am financially compensated for my analysis and as a professional it is important that I not allow my position in said analysis be tainted by bias for or against any of the candidates.
I was asked to offer up opinions and strategy on what 2016 is shaping up like. Specifically I was asked about the chances of primarily two candidates in the GOP field: Trump and Cruz.
While it is fun to get paid to provide analysis and commentary, I do not want listeners/readers misinterpreting my role.
I am sought out to render opinion about how actions impact the race, and whether or not they can beat the Dems a year from now.
So please don’t see any of my wording as endorsement! Analysis is never the same as who one is pulling for or against… And as I’ve repeatedly said in the primary race I will not be endorsing a candidate.