Patterico's Pontifications

10/27/2015

Trump No Longer Dominating Polls

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:26 am



With any luck, he is well on his way towards being the thing he hates the most: a loser.

Just a day after Ben Carson blew open a double-digit lead over Donald Trump in the state of Iowa in a new Monmouth University poll, a new poll shows the New York real estate mogul’s national advantage is slipping away.

A new survey from CBS News-New York Times released this morning shows Carson narrowly leading with 26 percent support and Trump with 22 percent support, though it is within the nationwide telephone poll’s margin of sampling error.

We don’t know that he’s losing nationally, but he’s no longer decisively leading. Let’s hope it’s a trend.

I get that people want a change, but it actually matters whether the change is towards a loose cannon who loves him some big government.

P.S. Our “Would You Vote for Trump?” poll, after 957 votes, stands as follows:

12% love him.
69% would hold their nose and vote for him over Hillary.
19% (185 people out of 957) would never vote him, period.

Polling is still open.

137 Responses to “Trump No Longer Dominating Polls”

  1. Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. Iowa is weird

    plus fruit loop ben carson has NO energy

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. you have to remember these are the same drooling failmerican gothic corn fetishists what picked Huckabee in 2008

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. It’s nice to know that if Trump needed 18% to win these guys would deliver the White House to Hillary!. How noble! How patriotic!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  5. if Trump needed 18% to win these guys would deliver the White House to Hillary!.

    I wonder how much of that 18% are Jeb-Bush sort of Republicans (ie, the country-club Republicans who don’t mind voting, or will nonchalantly vote, with their feet and the moving van), or are I-hate-loudmouths sort of Republicans or are I-hate-squish-squish Republicans? Or how many are “centrists” who lean left? Moreover, I wonder how many of them are the Americans (presumably of all stripes) who gave George W Bush lower marks before he left office and aren’t doing the same thing to the Godawful thing in the Oval Office today?

    The only cluster of people who flip off Trump that I have some faith in are the I-hate-squish-squish Republicans. The others strike me as being far too ideologically un-tethered themselves (as Trump is) and in a way not as appalled as they should be about an Obama Part 2, or are socio-political nitwits like Karl Rove (ie, “hey, y’all, Latinos tend to lean right!”).

    Mark (f713e4)

  6. the very best Team R can hope for is to keep the clinton apparatus out of the white house

    even if trump is a trashy whore and we all know he is

    he’s a huge thumb in the eye to the boehnerslut chamberpot republicans, which i appreciate

    and that hurts when you get a thumb jabbed in your eye

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  7. The Black Rock poll has an MOE of 6. First thing you learn in Statistics is anything with an MOE over 3 is junk, toss it.

    If Carson leads by 4 in that poll, it could just as easily be Trump up by 2.

    Or more.

    formwiz (6b3a5a)

  8. Mark, the 19% we’re talking about voted here at Patterico’ poll. These are not “Jeb Bush sort of Republicans” from some poll in Iowa. Nevertheless, they have the potential to give away the election to #Hillary!. And these are our own Patterico posting conservatives, no less.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  9. Patterico makes no bones about President44 is less danger to the Republic than Mr. Trump. In that context,post8 is spot on.

    In his zeal to destroy Mr. Trump, Mr. Patterico becomes the modern day Captain Ahab, complete with his crew of 19%.

    mike191 (b4a717)

  10. Well. I’m throwing my support to Marco Rubio.

    Because I might as well use the snakebite of my endorsement for constructive purposes.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  11. Did you see Marco going toe to toe with that guy on Univision?
    I don’t know what he said, because I don’t speak Spanish, but the facial cues and gesticulations sure looked inspiring.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  12. I get that people want a change, but it actually matters whether the change is towards a loose cannon who loves him some big government.

    You’d be more persuasive if you tried to persuade. Writing off the interest in Trump as an indiscriminate desire for “change” is just hand-waving.

    scrutineer (b7d257)

  13. I don’t know what he said, because I don’t speak Spanish, but the facial cues and gesticulations sure looked inspiring.

    You get the same facial cues and gesticulations watching two Mexicans order a beer.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  14. Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/27/2015 @ 9:47 am

    Preaching to the converted, baby. Welcome to my Mexican overlords.

    Did you see the premiere of “Supergirl” on CBS last night? Jimmy Olsen is now all of a sudden a black man, because of social justice.

    Not to be confused with cultural appropriation.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  15. Always liked that Jimmy Olsen. Damn hard worker.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  16. I can’t really take credit for Trump’s collapse. That would be wrong.

    It’s Hillary’s fault. She did so well, lying with aplomb, during the Benghazi partisan witchhunt.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  17. Wonder but do not know how much of this is Dinkins effect, respondents telling pollsters they will vote for an African-American so they might have pollster think better of them. Carson appears to be a decent man, but frankly there are hints he wouldn’t change much and might very well get rolled. We need defibrillation paddles applied to the body politic. Sense Carson ultimately might be more of the same. He speaks in lovely high-minded platitudes; been there done that.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  18. Not the black Jimmy, hf. He just stands around the office cooler, lying by omission to the supergirl.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  19. This illustrates why I think he’d implode in the general should he get nominated.

    Ford CEO responds to Trump: ‘Facts are stubborn things’

    I don’t understand why Trump’s mendacity doesn’t bother his conservative supporters, unless they haven’t figured out that he’s a liar, which doesn’t speak well of them.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  20. In his zeal to destroy Mr. Trump, Mr. Patterico becomes the modern day Captain Ahab, complete with his crew of 19%.

    You got that one part right, Mike191. Trump is a Moby, a Democrat, out to get Hillary elected.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. Donald Trump is the rich old white guy–One Percenter–who talks like Archie Bunker.

    Hillary would beat that.

    Danube River Guide (76b104)

  22. Hillary would beat that.

    Just like Ali beat Sonny Liston. (Half a punch followed by dive. – for ahistoric non fight fans)

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  23. In a post, just a few weeks back, our fearless leader lamented that he couldn’t see anything that would trip up Trump on his way to the nomination. It made me feel like a Pollyanna to think otherwise, but I did think otherwise. The voters are fickle, especially weeks and months before a final decision must be rendered. Now we are seeing just that fickleness with the voter’s growing infatuation with Carson, another lightweight as far as I am concerned. But I am not concerned about Carson either. It’s not just the “Dinkins effect” either, which Californians call the “Bradley effect,” in honor of L.A.’s hapless former mayor and failed gubernatorial candidate. The process, I believe, is much like buying a new car. You walk in to the showroom to look at the new model Corvette, but drive out with a station wagon. Right now, buyers are still kicking the tires on the Corvettes. That will change.

    Just call me Pollyana (nee ThOR).

    ThOR (a52560)

  24. I would never under any circumstance vote for Trump, even if my vote alone would decide the election between Trump and Clinton. I have long despised both of these candidates, and they would both make for terrible presidents. But in the unlikely event that Trump won the presidency, his inevitably disastrous tenure would deal irreparable damage to the Republican party (and the country). It might be a generation before Democrats again relinquished the presidency, and probably to an entirely new party rather than the GOP. The quicker Trump exits the stage, the better. As long as Trump stays in the race and national conversation, ever more moderate and independent voters are going to abandon ship and hold their nose for Hillary.

    Eric (9bc338)

  25. I would never under any circumstance vote for Trump, even if my vote alone would decide the election between Trump and Clinton.

    That make you an asshole. And you’re in the wrong room as well. The Democratic Underground is over yonder.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  26. Hopefully, we have seen peak Trump.

    At this point in 2011, Gallup had it:

    Romney 20
    Cain 18
    Perry 15
    (Ron) Paul 8
    Gingrich 7
    Bachmann 5

    In 2007, they had it:

    Rudy Giuliani 32%
    Fred Thompson 18%
    John McCain 14%
    Mitt Romney 10%
    Mike Huckabee 6%
    Ron Paul 5%

    It’s probably a bit early to tell.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. papertiger, why? He won’t vote in a contest between a Democrat and a pretend-Republican Democrat. The only one who belongs in DU is the person who will.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. I have never believed and still do not believe Trump will get the Republican nomination. I stated after the last debate I thought Trump had jumped the shark by coming out with rude , nasty comments about Rand Paul. I was wrong then but I still believe Trump will implode. I just wish he would hurry the hell up already.

    Still does not change my belief that if he did win a “pretend-Republican Democrat” is better than a full blown marxicrat-democrat.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  29. “That make you an asshole. And you’re in the wrong room as well. The Democratic Underground is over yonder.”

    – papertiger

    They couldn’t pay me enough to carry the kind of water you are trying to carry for Trump. At least I don’t think they could. What’s your going rate?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  30. speaking of carrying water

    people gave jeb bush over a hundred million dollars on the assumption that… failmerica: needz moar bushfilth

    that’s just frightening

    make the bad men go away

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. They couldn’t pay me enough to carry the kind of water you are trying to carry for Trump.

    Could have been a black eye coming from some other poster, but I consider it a high compliment from Leviticus.

    No. I’m not carrying water for Trump. It’s just that Eric said that if his vote was the only one in the country that counted, he’d vote for Hillary.

    Can’t abide that.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  32. papertiger, why? He won’t vote in a contest between a Democrat and a pretend-Republican Democrat. The only one who belongs in DU is the person who will.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/27/2015 @ 11:42 am

    Well. Said.

    JD (3b5483)

  33. 26-
    Enough with the bad memories.

    mg (31009b)

  34. I have this nagging doubt about Trump- if he got the nomination would he decide at the last minute that he couldn’t do it for family reasons or some such, or if he ran and won, would he seek Bill and Hillary’s help and counsel? He’s a friend of theirs who called her questioning before the Benghazi committee “partisan”, who consulted with Bill before he decided to run….. What if he’s really just trying to remove a strong and viable conservative candidate (like Cruz!!!) from the ticket? What if he is either knowingly or unknowingly part of Clinton plotting????? Inquiring minds want to know!

    dbrugs (f72152)

  35. what a start to the series.

    mg (31009b)

  36. you mean like mccain ‘throwing the match’ in 2008, or romney’s repeated protestations he didn’t want to run, and he showed us how much he didn’t want to run, but not before 800 million was wasted,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  37. I mean this is what real republican nominees did, don’t blame me I voted for Guiliani and Gingrich, when the primary came about,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  38. 32.papertiger, why? He won’t vote in a contest between a Democrat and a pretend-Republican Democrat. The only one who belongs in DU is the person who will.

    I can understand that. The problem is neither #Hillary! nor Sanders are democrats, they are socialists at a minimum and pretend-communists at worst. I’d take the pretend democrat Trump over a pinko any day.

    If you guys think Trump is liberal enough to be a pretend democrat then that makes the two idiots left of him commies. Gonna vote for a commie?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  39. You guys are trying to find articulable reasons for: “Hey, Trump is running for President!” “You’ve gotta be kidding!” That’s because, unlike Trump, you are not demented buffoons and try to make sense of things.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. here’s a charming little tale for halloween:

    http://experience.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/26/michael-gerson-end-times-gop/74634376/

    I have little use for Trump, but his overwrought critics, like Williamson and Wilson, and this fellow, rankle me more, because they had the same opinion about Cruz, two years, and the Huntress four years ago,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  41. Not voting for anybody is not a vote for Hillary. That is such a sad, silly, and tired trope that gets trotted out every year by those that demand fealty to a group that continually flips us the bird. No effin thanks.

    JD (3b5483)

  42. 41.Not voting for anybody is not a vote for Hillary. That is such a sad, silly, and tired trope that gets trotted out every year by those that demand fealty to a group that continually flips us the bird. No effin thanks.

    If it makes you feel better believing not supporting one isn’t giving passive support to the other okay. By that standard one never need vote, just let the chips fall where they may. Oh and BTW, JD, Trump is hardly a party to that group who demands fealty and flips us the bird. Matter of fact, they hate him. He can’t be an outsider and at the same time be a party hack.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  43. This is politics, not religion. If you guys are not willing to support the candidate your fellow party members nominate then I suggest you are looking for a saint not a candidate and should leave politics and go into theology. This is why the democrat socialists beat the balls off us so much. They all say the same lines, vote the same, quote the same with nary a dissenting word, and if they were to nominate Beelzebub they would all vote twice for him as usual as would their dead parents.

    Ya want purity, vote for Mother Theresa.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  44. I think you’re addressing the wrong audience, take that up with Luntz’s focus groups, who say they can’t make up their mind, one week before the election, but decide romney was a dog torturing tax cheating employee killer, just because,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  45. I’m convinced. I wont be voting for Hillary.

    Not voting for anybody is not a vote for Hillary.

    Yeah it is.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  46. That effin “purity” argument is almost as tiresome as the not voting is a vote for Hillary/Obama nonsense. It makes it even more incredible for otherwise sane rational people tondo continually trot out such bibble babble.

    JD (3b5483)

  47. Voting for “the lesser of two evils” time and time and time again is what got us to this point where a fake-Republican Democrat clown with a dead badger on his head thinks he can be President. You know if somebody holds a out a horse turd and another a cowflop, you’re not voting for the horse turd if you refuse to take the cowflop.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. Oh and BTW, JD, Trump is hardly a party to that group who demands fealty and flips us the bird. Matter of fact, they hate him. He can’t be an outsider and at the same time be a party hack.

    But he can well be the sort who demands fealty to Himself and flip us the bird when he wants. Kind of like Obama.

    But my opposition to him is based simply on my opinion that he would be a bad president. A really bad president, who will fraudulently claim to do conservative things and in the process inflict considerable damage on conservative causes…and be bad for the country in general.

    I want an outsider who can be a good president, or at least halfway competent. Cruz and Fiorina currently seem to fill the bill best.

    But I will settle for anyone who is not Trump or Clinton.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  49. Papertiger lies about what I said in his support of the Democrat Trump. Then he accuses Eric of being part of DU. His “win at all costs, ends justifies the means” approach is a major part of what is wrong with this country.

    John Hitchcock (554368)

  50. Trump may not be a party hack, but his zombie supporters are already demanding fealty.

    JD (3b5483)

  51. You know if somebody holds a out a horse turd and another a cowflop, you’re not voting for the horse turd if you refuse to take the cowflop.

    That’s a ridiculous analogy, nk. This is an election ONE WILLbe President. It’s not a choice between two things that you don’t have to take either.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  52. His “win at all costs, ends justifies the means” approach is a major part of what is wrong with this country.

    Only because up till now it’s been the leftists who practiced this policy. We need to learn from them. I almost always agree with you John Hitchcock but this election is between NOT a socialist and a socialist. And we can’t choose none of the above unless you want the socialist.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  53. For four years. And in 2020 if some political party wants your vote against the horseturd party, it’ll know to offer you something better than a cowflop.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. But my opposition to him is based simply on my opinion that he would be a bad president.

    Really, kishnevi? A worse President than a far left socialist or a pathological lying grifter (who is a socialist herself)? A worse President who would further divide America, throw Israel to the moslems, use the educational establishment as their own private school of propaganda, worse than having Hillary! or Sanders appoint two Supreme Court Justices? Are you people all gone mad?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  55. rest assured the media will polarize every candidate to the left of martin o’malley, so wait for this round of rollerderby,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  56. These people are serious fellas. You’re bitchin’ about the candidate in the next election while they’re planning how to turn your grandchildren socialist. You guys are saying Trump ain’t a perfect Republican or even a marginal conservative while they’re planning the next two or three SC judges that will make law for 40 years! We heed a win whether you have to hold your nose, hold your balls, hold your nose and your balls and pull the lever with your teeth. Regardless who is our nominee they can’t be allowed to win this one or there won’t be a next one.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  57. Forty years is not a long time, either. My daughter will be fifty-four then and she’ll be a great President of the Galactic Federation.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. Trump will nominate Leftist justices. Don’t fool yourself.

    John Hitchcock (554368)

  59. If you guys think Trump is liberal enough to be a pretend democrat then that makes the two idiots left of him commies. Gonna vote for a commie?

    Things have gone off the rails to such a great degree over the past 7 years (or more) in Obama’s America that the idealism of voting for the one and only candidate (or a variation of that) that totally tickles one’s fancy — and no one or nothing else will do — is foolhardy. I strongly dislike Jeb Bush or squishy dweebs similar to him, but I’d never imply he’s as much of a leftwing idiot as Hillary or Sanders, etc, is, and I’d never claim a vote for Jeb would be no better than a vote for the Democrat.

    We live in ideologically perilous times, due in part to things like surveys that indicate younger Americans are more liberal than in the past and quite happy to identify themselves as such. That needs to be set against the backdrop of a nation that is far more leftwing today — in various shapes and forms — than it was 10, 30, 60 or more years ago.

    I’ve often wondered what sensible, rational, practical and generally right-leaning people of countries like Mexico, France or Argentina have to go through each and every day. They must feel like they’re trapped in an insane asylum, but presumably at least no worse than what decent people have to experience in places like Cuba or North Korea.

    The appropriate motto to insert could very well be: “Coming to a theater near you.”

    Mark (f713e4)

  60. And I know JD, you’ve been hearing this for years how this is the “important one” and blah, blah, blah. But never before have the democrats actually begun very quietly calling themselves the democrat-socialist party. And never before have they run a candidate who openly called himself a socialist. They are making “socialist” mainstream so we don’t have time to bitch about Trump.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  61. What conservative doesn’t love Ted Cruz?

    Hate Trump all you want, but the fact is, Cruz doesn’t have any sort of record of being able to work with the other side. Not that we want him to work with the other side — because they’re frickin’ nuts. But what’s he going to be able to actually do? Probably not much, unless a majority of the Republicans agree to pass the conservative agenda on Reconcillation and Executive Orders. Are we all for that now, if Ted Cruz the Uniter (not) is elected President?

    Haven’t you espoused many times, Patterico, that you don’t want to resort to the other side’s tactics?

    No one has made the case that The Donald wouldn’t be an effective leader, or that he wouldn’t be able to unite and work with both sides. Is that possibility, that Trump just might succeed brilliantly at this, what you’re afraid of? Where is this need to despise Donald Trump coming from? You seem utterly beside yourself that people like him and think him ultimately, to be capable of leading the country. It’s truly unlike anything I’ve seen from you and I’ve been reading your blog regularly (practically daily) since a few months before the election of Obama (summer 2008).

    School Marm (f96753)

  62. 59.Trump will nominate Leftist justices. Don’t fool yourself.

    J0hn please. You have nothing to base that on but hatred of the man and with the support of a Republican Congress I doubt that very much. One thing is for sure….Hillary! or Sanders will definitely put up far, far left SC judges. You know that. Everything else is speculation. And f either of those two appoint S judges we may just burn the Constitution because I’d rather do that than watch those pigs wipe their a$$ with it.

    You can kiss your freedom of speech goodbye with “Hate speech” ad internet rules. Bye-bye second amendment, first, fourth, tenth…..need I go on?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  63. So that’s why you worked so diligently to mischaracterize Patterico’s statements, and those of others who are deadset against Trump? You have to set up blatant straw men in order to try to set them on fire with your wet paper matches?

    John Hitchcock (554368)

  64. Trump will nominate Leftist justices. Don’t fool yourself.

    What’s pathetic is that your alarm or fears are justified, but the political playing field is full of so many booby traps — due to the tolerance for liberalism displayed by far too many Americans (ie, Obama ain’t looking at extremely dismal opinion poll ratings the way his predecessor did) — that Ted Cruz and most certainly Republicans along the lines of Jeb Bush could face the same dynamics that Romney did in 2012.

    The strategy that Ben Carson will need, or the reactions that his candidacy will generate, are murky at this time since — well, well, surprise, surprise — the folks who love to dance around the idea of a non-white occupant of the Oval Office have had their cravings satisfied with Obama for 7 years, and actually only give a damn about a non-white politician if he’s of the left.

    Mark (f713e4)

  65. well Rudman was the one who found Souter, in a town right out of the dead zone, we were assured anthony kennedy was solid on the issues that mattered, and lets not discuss Dread Pirate Roberts at this juncture,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  66. My last was re school marm.

    John Hitchcock (554368)

  67. Really, kishnevi? A worse President than a far left socialist or a pathological lying grifter (who is a socialist herself)?

    Trump is a pathological lying grifter himself. He would be as bad as Clinton, just do it in different ways.

    No one has made the case that The Donald wouldn’t be an effective leader, or that he wouldn’t be able to unite and work with both sides
    He would unite, yes. But not for conservative causes. Better a real socialist in the WH than a statist who pretends to be a conservative.

    Cruz may end up being the Divider in Chief, but at least he will be fighting for actual conservative ideas.

    The real bottom line is this: if this country can only offer Trump or Hillary as realistic chouces for POTUS, then it is time to find a new country. I can always make aliyah to Israel, but you guys might have a harder time figuring out where to go.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  68. Eminent Domain used against small private owners for the benefit of big private owners.
    Single Payer.
    Funding Planned Parenthood.
    Higher taxes.
    Weak on #2A.

    Which of those 5 suggests Trump would even consider a Moderate justice?

    John Hitchcock (554368)

  69. rest assured, his next column made up for it with category error,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/27/7-reasons-ted-cruz-is-running-the-best-2016-campaign/

    yes, I know he’s journolist, but still blind squirrel,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  70. It’s truly unlike anything I’ve seen from you and I’ve been reading your blog regularly (practically daily) since a few months before the election of Obama (summer 2008).

    I previously wondered if Patterico ever expressed as much blunt disdain towards Obama back in 2008-2009, but I don’t recall it necessarily being as visceral as it is with Trump. I do recall Pat saying that, while he didn’t like Obama’s politics, he ultimately thought Barry was a “good man,” and getting quite a bit of flak for that from certain forumers.

    All I know is that over these past many years, Obama has done or said nothing that makes me believe he’s a “good man.” Quite the contrary.

    Mark (f713e4)

  71. What School Marm said. You know, with Hillary! we know exactly what we will get. With Trump it might be good. He seems to be evolving on a lot of issues, which has been very popular with the other side.

    Gazzer (3add11)

  72. Not voting for anybody is not a vote for Hillary.

    Same ballpark.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  73. The real bottom line is this: if this country can only offer Trump or Hillary as realistic chouces for POTUS, then it is time to find a new country.

    That futility currently exists in societies all over the globe, including the nation directly south of our border, considerable portions of Europe and, of course, much of the land mass of Africa, with the worst-of-both-worlds existing in places like the Middle East.

    Hard to have confidence in the decisionmaking skills of most humans.

    Mark (f713e4)

  74. again it’s not primarily about politics, those who are churched, on balance, make better decisions of this kind, then those who are not, those others have found other ‘graven images’ to worship,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  75. Mark (f713e4) — 10/27/2015 @ 7:45 pm

    The difference is that Obama had little public record to judge him on in 2008. One could reasonably judge him in the scale of merit. Trump has a long public record, and it is not a good one.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  76. no they chose not to examine his lecture, his ties to Ayers and Khalidi, too closely that is something else again

    with the good doctor, they won’t even bother with ‘fake but accurate’

    http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/10/27/ben-carson-the-plot-against-the-doctor-is-about-to-begin/?singlepage=true

    narciso (ee1f88)

  77. 77… Not true, kishnevi. Obama was a known rotter for a long time. All one had to have was the interest and some time. The history was there.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. The funny thing is, if everybody stopped worrying about who “could” or “couldn’t” win and just voted his or her ideological preferences, neither Trump nor Hillary would win. They are both Nightmares born of a collective action problem, and nothing more.

    Leviticus (5e9105)

  79. well yes, but the whole consultant industry, would be forced into less amenable pursuits, like counting cards,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. For every one of you guys who won’t vote for Trump if nominated there is most likely another “Republican” who won’t vote for Cruz, or Rubio, or Fiorina or whoever for their own reasons and feel just as justified as you. But I guarantee whoever gets the democrat-socialist nomination will be supported 100% by their voters both alive and dead. We can’t even depend on living Republicans and those bastards have dead people voting….multiple times!

    I can now see on this blog why the Republic is going kaput. We cannot hang together go I guess we will hang separately.

    Good night.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  81. I would never under any circumstance vote for Trump, even if my vote alone would decide the election between Trump and Clinton.

    Me too, but what if the election were between Trump and Mrs 0bama? I still think Michelle will make a move for the D nomination, some time early next year, and in that scenario I think if I were in a swing state I would have to vote for Trump. I think. I’m not actually sure. Thankfully I’m not in a swing state, so I won’t be faced with that dilemma; I can safely vote for whomever the Libertarians nominate, or write Scott Walker in, knowing that it can’t possibly affect the result.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  82. I would never under any circumstance vote for Trump, even if my vote alone would decide the election between Trump and Clinton.

    That make you an asshole. And you’re in the wrong room as well. The Democratic Underground is over yonder

    Um, remember whose room this is. How can someone who agrees with our host be in the wrong room?

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  83. Rev Hoagie – convince me he is a Republican, convince me he will pursue conservative ideals, convince me he won’t a use Executive authority, and maybe I might re-evaluate. Until then, I see no point in rallying behind him. Additionally, if you think winning is that damn important, why aren’t you and the other supporters taking into account the views of a percentage of the electorate? Why do you feel justified in simply bullying them to fall in line like lemmings?

    JD (3b5483)

  84. Still does not change my belief that if he did win a “pretend-Republican Democrat” is better than a full blown marxicrat-democrat.

    So you would have voted for Bloomberg? I’m proud to say that I took all seven opportunities I had to vote against him (4 R primaries and 3 general elections). Twice in the generals I voted for either the Libertarian or the Conservative, but in 2009 I voted for the Democrat, Bill Thompson, because I thought he had a chance of winning, and because for a Democrat he’s not that awful. That was the first time in 25 years that I’d voted for a Democrat, at any level. (In 1984 I voted for a D state assemblyman.)

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  85. Not voting for anybody is not a vote for Hillary.

    It’s the same as casting half a vote for her, if she’s the D nominee. It reduces the total she needs to win that state by 1 vote. (Actually voting for her reduces that by 2; her total goes up by 1 and Trump’s goes down by 1. That’s why not voting at all is the same as giving her half a vote.)

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  86. You know if somebody holds a out a horse turd and another a cowflop, you’re not voting for the horse turd if you refuse to take the cowflop.

    If you know you’re going to get one or the other, and you have a definite preference for one over the other, then yes, it is.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  87. The real bottom line is this: if this country can only offer Trump or Hillary as realistic chouces for POTUS, then it is time to find a new country. I can always make aliyah to Israel,

    The choices aren’t much better over there, as I’m sure you know. Feiglin is probably the only true libertarian ever to have served in the Knesset, and his chances of returning there are slim.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  88. Me too, but what if the election were between Trump and Mrs 0bama?

    I’m not sure if your take on things is because you fear leftists and liberalism less than I do or, in a strange way, perhaps more than I do.

    Hillary is a leftist through and through while Trump is a chameleon and squish through and through. Which means there will be pure liberal crud and tons of gut-wrenching dishonesty emanating from a Clinton II (or Obama 2nd chapter) presidency, while with Trump there’s at least a chance that sanity and big-mouth honesty will prevail on occasion.

    Overall, I still think anyone who perceives little to no distinction between Hillary and Donald is less disgusted by and apprehensive of liberals and a left-swooning America than I am.

    Mark (f713e4)

  89. The difference is that Obama had little public record to judge him on in 2008. One could reasonably judge him in the scale of merit.

    kishnevi, you come off like an apologist for Obama’s background and history. While he may not have had an out-and-out, long-term public record with which to judge him by, other aspects of the guy were nothing but unadulterated, garden-variety, scroungy liberalism. So much so, that, no, I never sensed he was a “good man” or certainly any better than the average slob.

    Mark (f713e4)

  90. “So that’s why you worked so diligently to mischaracterize Patterico’s statements, and those of others who are deadset against Trump? You have to set up blatant straw men in order to try to set them on fire with your wet paper matches?

    — John Hitchcock #65

    What mischaracterization? What strawman?
    I’ll wait…

    School Marm (f96753)

  91. Ryan/Gutierrez 2016
    Peace out.

    mg (31009b)

  92. Mark – why don’t you cut the good man crap out until you bother to go learn the context of it ?

    JD (3b5483)

  93. JD, I will when I observe Patterico calling Trump basically a “good man” too.

    Mark (f713e4)

  94. Hitchcock, I’m for Rubio now. So climb off my back.

    Hey Hitch, you’re from Mexico right? I might need an interpreter during a Estado de la Unión speech.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  95. Mark – do you really plan on just throwing that out there, intentionally ignorant of the context? That type of dishonesty is usually associated with extreme levels if squishiness, and left-leaning proclivities.

    JD (136c9e)

  96. JD said:

    85.Rev Hoagie – convince me he is a Republican, convince me he will pursue conservative ideals, convince me he won’t a use Executive authority, and maybe I might re-evaluate. Until then, I see no point in rallying behind him. Additionally, Why do you feel justified in simply bullying them to fall in line like lemmings?

    First, I can’t convince you he’s a Republican if you don’t believe your own eyes: he’s running as a Republican. He could have been an Islamist theocrat until then but now he’s a Republican. You just don’t like it. Neither can I convince you of what ideals he, or anyone else, will pursue. I won’t try to convince you he won’t use Executive authority because it is a Presidents right to do so. Why wouldn’t he?

    When you say; “if you think winning is that damn important, why aren’t you and the other supporters taking into account the views of a percentage of the electorate?” that has nothing to do with it. I am not campaigning for you to vote for Trump for our candidate and I don’t want Trump to be our candidate. But, if he becomes our candidate we must rally behind him as strongly as those traitorous democrats will rally behind their commie pinko candidate if we intend to defeat them.

    And I am not bullying anybody to do anything. I’m presenting my spirited opinion as to why, even if you hate Trump, if he wins the candidacy we must support him or the commies win. When you say that you sound like a leftist professor. Whatever he says is enlightened knowledge but if I say something it’s “bullying”. Also I don’t have the power or authority to bully anyone into lemmings and if I did I’d use it on democrats, not you.

    Now I’m going to flip it on you. Why are you so wanting of a commie like Hillary! or Sanders to appoint one, probably two, perhaps three Ruth Bater Ginsberg’s to the SC? Why are you bullying me to not vote Republican if Trump gets the nomination?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  97. I don’t give a crap who you vote for.

    JD (136c9e)

  98. Simply running as a Republican doesn’t make him one. Complete nonsense. Look at his history of praising leftist policies. Look at his long history of donations to leftists, including the Clinton Foundation. There is far more evidence of him supporting Dems than our side.

    JD (136c9e)

  99. For the sake of the home audience – What was the context? I haven’t seen any trace of Obama’s goodness. He allowed State Dept personnel to be massacred without lifting a finger. When the truth of his inaction threatened to derail his election, he concocted a lie, tossing out one of the four freedoms in the process, in order to demonize some guy on youtube.
    That guy was obstensibly jailed for expressing an opinion, but in reality just because the resident needed a scapegoat.

    What where when did Obama do or say anything that would lead Pat to think Barry was a good guy?

    I want the context.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  100. Was it just giving Obama the benefit of a doubt on account of his blackness? Was it before Barack played the race card the first time, or the thousandth time he pulled the sleeve card?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  101. if Trump gets elected and follows through on his promises regarding illegal aliens and unrestricted immigration, that will be more of a win for me than any of the GOPe candidates will give me, and a marked improvement over what will happen if Shrillery or the (Idiot-Vt.) become POTUS.

    this “poll” is just the NYT wishcasting to the LIVs amongst us.

    redc1c4 (e4c086)

  102. Did you see Hillary on with Steve Colbert last night? Somehow Colbert got her into talking about how crappy the economy is for young people. You could see her eyes roll back into her head. Like a sharks eyes when it’s biting off a chunk of whale meat. She barely dragged back from that verboten subject with a sop for gay weddings and women income equality.

    She’s going to implode. Too much reality smacking her in the face from every direction.

    Whomever gets the nomination, even if it’s the worst person on the GOP bench, they are going to win in a landslide.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  103. 99.I don’t give a crap who you vote for.

    Nice, JD, so now let’s get all snippy about it. As of this moment Trump is not our candidate. All I’m saying is that if he does become our candidate there is a lot more at stake than your petty likes and dislikes. There are at least two Supreme court nominations, rolling back our immigration policy which has become an invasion policy, securing our borders and revisiting Obamacare just to start. No candidate was ever for nor any President ever done everything I wanted or liked. That’s life. But it will be a hell of a lot worse if Hillary! or Sanders is making those decisions. At least I think so.

    I honestly doubt Trump will be the Republican candidate but whoever earns that distinction has my undying support to defeat the forces of evil socialism even if I’m a racist, hate Hispanics, loathe women and think all bush’s are idiots, I’ll support whoever.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  104. “Heed our warning. Don’t expect us to come to your side during the general election. You are not with us now? We will not be with you then. You do not need our vote now? You won’t have it then. You insult us now? We will be deaf to you then? You take us for granted? We will not recognize you then.”

    – Rosario Martin — former U.S. Treasurer under GWB

    Lookie there. Hispanics threaten to continue not voting for Republicans, if we don’t keep the borders wide open.
    Straight from the horse.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  105. I don’t take well to threats, or non patriots who reserve their loyalties for the old country.

    If you don’t want to be American. Fine. Pick another country and leave. Just hope for your own sake that other country isn’t Mexico. Mexico doesn’t do take backs. And they don’t let foreigners become Mexican citizens.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  106. Well, papertiger, Hispanics will never for the most part vote Republican especially Hispanics new to the US. They come here from countries with a predisposition to socialism and like people from the ME who come from dictatorship or theocracy they do not assimilate well. Even if they are inclined to assimilate it takes years. and those years are spent democrats as that is closer to what they’re used to.

    I’ve mentioned before how our Korean friends are mostly democrats and how I turn one at a time Republican with great effort, I might add. They are used to government overlords and even though they love their new country can’t help but bring that social construct and culture with the. That’s why all those years the left was pro multiculturalism, it kept immigrants government dependent i.e. democrat.

    For some reason we’ve allowed 50 million Mexicans to walk in to our country. That’s insane. I wouldn’t let 50 million Englishmen walk into our country and we have a lot more in common with them as a culture than we do with Mexicans.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  107. Whomever gets the nomination, even if it’s the worst person on the GOP bench, they are going to win in a landslide.

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/28/2015 @ 10:31 am

    I disagree. IMO Hillary has at least a 50% chance of winning – without knowing the identity of the Republican nominee. Whoever it turns out to be changes that calculation by a few percent but I don’t foresee a landslide with anyone. The electorate is now configured to where a near majority is not open to voting R for President when the Dems have their GOTV operation humming.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  108. A group of conservative Latinos from “two dozen top Hispanic conservative groups” held a press conference in Boulder, Colo. yesterday ahead of tonight’s GOP debate in order to warn the candidates that if they adopt Donald Trump-esqe immigration policies, then “don’t expect us to come to your side during the general election.”

    “don’t expect us to come to your side during the general election.”

    “Come to our side” from where?

    Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71% to 27%, according to an analysis of exit polls by the Pew Hispanic Center, a Project of the Pew Research Center.

    So Hispanics threaten to continue voting Democrat in super majority numbers unless we renounce our countries border and relinquish government sovereignty.

    I think someone should explain the concept of threat to Latinos. Tails I win, Heads you lose, doesn’t really give incentive me to change.

    So the answer is no.

    You go ahead and vote for Hillary, which you were going to do anyway.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  109. Here let me translate that, so John can misinterpret what I said correctly.

    Un grupo de conservadores Latinos de “dos docenas mejores grupos conservadores de la hispana” celebraron una conferencia de prensa en Boulder, Colorado ayer antes del debate del partido republicano de esta noche para advertir a los candidatos que si adoptan políticas de inmigración de Donald Trump-esqe, entonces “no esperan que lleguen a su lado durante las elecciones generales.”

    “no esperes que lleguen a su lado durante las elecciones generales”.

    ¿”Vienen a nuestro lado” desde donde?

    Los latinos votaron por Presidente Barack Obama sobre el republicano Mitt Romney por 71% a 27%, según un análisis de las encuestas de salida por el Pew Hispanic Center, un proyecto del centro de Investigación Pew.

    Así que los hispanos amenazan con continuar votando demócrata en números de súper mayoría a menos que renuncie a la frontera de los países y renunciar a la soberanía del gobierno.

    Creo que alguien debería explicar el concepto de amenaza a los Latinos. Colas que gano, pierdes, las cabezas no realmente dan incentivo para cambiar.

    Entonces la respuesta es no.

    Anímate y vota por Hillary, que se va a hacer de todos modos.

    I don’t want there to be any doubt.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  110. I’d hazard a guess that enthusiastic Trump supporters consist almost entirely of people who claim to be hardcore free market capitalists while simultaneously complaining that they lost their job to someone who was willing to work harder for less money, and who demand protectionist state intervention as a remedy.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  111. Actually, Leviticus, I’d hazard a guess that enthusiastic Trump supporters consist almost entirely of people who are deeply concerned about our porous borders which have been that way for decades under Republicans and democrats. I’d also guess they are not too supportive of allowing upwards of 50 million Hispanics to enter our country like they were walking into a Denny’s, with free food coupons, the menu in Spanish and they could sleep there. Finally, I’d guess the idea of the left having the same immigration policy they have for the Mexicans for the moslems might be something they’re against and so is Trump.

    The only way a protectionist state can intervene is if the people taking the jobs are illegal aliens, in which case they shouldn’t be here and that is EXACTLY what the state is for, protecting Americans. Or do you believe, like the leftists do, that American jobs should be taken by illegals? See, for a leftist it’s a win/win. The American looses his job, goes on relief and starts voting democrat to protect his dole and the illegal gets to stay, not pay taxes while working under the table and getting benefits then he also votes democrat. And you and I either foot the bill or leave.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  112. What the Rev said!

    Gazzer (3add11)

  113. To a real capitalist, there are not “American jobs.” There are just “jobs.”

    To a nationalist/mercantilist, there are “American jobs.”

    Trump and lots of other politicians want to straddle the fence on that one and hope that nobody notices.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  114. Barack Hussein Hoagie: I think a lot of the people who are upset about the presence of illegal immigrants would ALSO be upset if the jobs themselves moved to Mexico in the same way that manufacturing jobs have moved to east Asia and a lot of computer jobs have moved to India.

    Drawing a wall and keeping the illegal immigrants out doesn’t help with that problem – and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Trump’s supporters would also support, say, protective tariffs designed to keep jobs here.

    aphrael (ab3979)

  115. As a business man I would hope that he would understand that the way to keep jobs here is to lower corporate taxes. So far I have yet to hear him say that.

    Gazzer (3add11)

  116. Sorry Levidicus, You don’t get to define what a “real” capitalist is and for a discussion about jobs in America there must be “American jobs”. No one here is worried about Mexicans taking jobs from Sweden. You and I were discussing what we think draws people to Trump and it ain’t saving jobs in Stockholm or a border fence for Finland.

    aphrael, jobs moving out of the country is a separate problem and of course a wall has no effect on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if his supporters were for tariffs because I think Trump is.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  117. So, what’s so great about being a “real capitalist” (according to the Leviticus definition)? Why would anyone want one of them around? Give me a loyal American protectionist, who cares more about his country and his fellow citizens than he does about maximizing his profit, any day. But then, I look at my “fellow citizens” and see that it takes five Obama voters to do the work of one Mexican; ten to do the work of one Chinese. And it’s a dilemma. Somebody has to fry those McNuggets that Obama voters buy with their EBT cards; not to mention pick up the trash that they’ll just throw down anywhere instead of in the trash basket.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. Hey, papertiger @ 96. No, I am not from Mexico. I have never claimed to be from Mexico. That’s your lie. I am part Mexican. And part several other things. That does not mean I am from Mexico. And you know that. Because you have not tried to claim I said I was from Ireland.

    John Hitchcock (ecdbe3)

  119. The only way a protectionist state can intervene is if the people taking the jobs are illegal aliens, in which case they shouldn’t be here and that is EXACTLY what the state is for, protecting Americans.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/28/2015 @ 1:10 pm

    If someone is a pure free marketer there is no contradiction in demanding that people shouldn’t be able to come here without applying, but at the same time they wouldn’t object to those same people coming legally as long as they work, even if it depresses wages. A free marketer also wouldn’t object to moving production to another country. If someone does object to either of those they aren’t a free marketer.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  120. Why can’t these crimaleins fix their own country? And quit ruining ours. Talk about pollution, whew. Try some tide on those gunny sacks.

    mg (31009b)

  121. Gerald A., I was about to go into a whole shpeel about being a free-marketer and not a capitalist as “capitalist” s really a commie definition right after #118 but I was starving and went to eat. But thanks, you called it.

    Someone, I can’t recall who, stated a country can have open immigration or a welfare state but it can’t have both as immigrants will come just to get benefits. I’d like to say we no longer live in a world where it takes three months to come to America. We no longer live in a world where if one does not work neither shall he eat. Nowadays he eats pretty damn well at the expense of others and oddly never, ever seems to say “thank you”.

    Foreigners, regardless of their country of origin should not be allowed any government benefits. They should have proof of health insurance BEFORE they are granted admittance.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  122. mg, what the hell is the “donor class”?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  123. the people funding jeb’s campaign, the ones who have boehner as retainer,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  124. The trolling chamber of commerce.

    mg (31009b)

  125. “So, what’s so great about being a “real capitalist” (according to the Leviticus definition)? Why would anyone want one of them around? Give me a loyal American protectionist, who cares more about his country and his fellow citizens than he does about maximizing his profit, any day.”

    – nk

    That’s a perfectly respectable position too, but it drives me crazy when politicians try to split the difference. And when voters get tricked by it.

    Leviticus (5e9105)

  126. “Someone, I can’t recall who, stated a country can have open immigration or a welfare state but it can’t have both as immigrants will come just to get benefits.”

    – Rev. Hoagie

    It was Milton Friedman. Patterico posted a video the last time I raised this point.

    Leviticus (5e9105)

  127. Thank you, Leviticus. He’s one of the best.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  128. Mark – do you really plan on just throwing that out there, intentionally ignorant of the context?

    JD, so what exactly was the context of the situation several years ago when Patterico inserted into his blog (I believe it may have even been a full entry of his and not just a brief message embedded in a thread—but I admit to not recalling exactly and being too lazy to do a Google search) that he thought Obama was a “good man?” I’m fairly sure it wasn’t in response to someone like, say, a Klanner entering this forum and spewing racist venom on Obama, causing Pat to feel an understandable counter-reaction was necessary.

    Mark (f713e4)

  129. I think a lot of the people who are upset about the presence of illegal immigrants would ALSO be upset if the jobs themselves moved to Mexico in the same way that manufacturing jobs have moved to east Asia and a lot of computer jobs have moved to India.

    So what? Of course people will want jobs to remain in this country. If you’re trying to make folks opposed to unfettered immigration sound like hypocrites, you’ll have to do better than that. You can raise the angle of someone like Trump hiring a lot of illegals to do the gardening on his estate or clean the bathrooms of his hotels. But even that’s not as two-faced or phony-baloney as all the liberals (perhaps even you?) who profess to being so tolerant and warm-hearted about decades of illegal immigration, but who will pull out all the stops to avoid sending their precious children to schools where the student body is mostly Latino.

    Oh, hello Barack and Michelle! We were just talking about you.

    Mark (f713e4)

  130. To a real capitalist, there are not “American jobs.” There are just “jobs.”

    Exactly. Just as there is not “American grain” or “American steel”. No matter how big the Republican tent gets, there is simply no room in it for protectionists, and that applies to labor just as much as it does to any other commodity.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  131. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Trump’s supporters would also support, say, protective tariffs designed to keep jobs here.

    I’m pretty sure Trump himself has openly supported tariffs. Which is just one reason why I can never support him.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  132. Sorry Levidicus, You don’t get to define what a “real” capitalist is

    He wasn’t making up a definition, he was giving the correct and uncontroversial definition.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  133. If someone is a pure free marketer there is no contradiction in demanding that people shouldn’t be able to come here without applying, but at the same time they wouldn’t object to those same people coming legally as long as they work, even if it depresses wages. A free marketer also wouldn’t object to moving production to another country. If someone does object to either of those they aren’t a free marketer.

    Exactly. The only valid reason for keeping someone from crossing the border is a concern that he might pose some kind of danger. Keeping out someone known to be safe, merely to artificially maintain the price of labor, is classic protectionism, exactly like keeping out foreign steel or sugar for the same purpose.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  134. The only valid reason for keeping someone from crossing the border is a concern that he might pose some kind of danger.

    If you’re willing to make that claim, Milhouse, while stuck for the rest of your life (perhaps if you were exiled as proof of your mettle and tolerance) in the middle of a socio-economic quagmire reminiscent of what a person can easily find in a place like Mexico — full of shantytown poverty, half-crocked academic qualities, crime, corruption and other assorted third-rate socialistic-leftist characteristics — then I’d say that when I think of someone like you, in terms of capitalism in particular, the phrase that crops up is “a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

    Mark (f713e4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6543 secs.