Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump? Nobody Knows Anything.
Over coffee while we were all waiting for Mrs. Reagan’s funeral to begin last Friday, I had conversations with two of the most astute and accomplished political figures I know: Pete Wilson, former governor of California, and Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House. I asked each if he thought Donald Trump could win — not the nomination, which both believed he might very well grasp, but the White House itself.
Pete Wilson shook his head. “In the general, I’m afraid, Trump would get destroyed.”
Newt Gingrich smiled. “He could crush Hillary. Imagine Trump’s going to the South Side of Chicago and saying that the status quo of bad schools and declining neighborhoods and violence in the streets is just unacceptable. Imagine his saying, ‘I’m a billionaire and you’re not because they’ve rigged the system.'” Trump’s reach is so broad, the former Speaker argued, that he could become the first Republican in decades to win significant black support, dooming the Democrats.
Trump. Either he will be destroyed — or he will do the destroying. What has always been true of show business is now true of presidential politics: As screenwriter William Goldman famously put it in the first sentence of his classic book, Adventures in the Screen Trade, “Nobody knows anything.”
Published in General
If Trump meets Hillary, a candidate with negative favorability will be favored to win.
Frank, these favorability numbers are for the general electorate and already include Democrats, right? Marci’s hope that Trump would make up his low numbers with Democrats is misplaced, if I’m right.
And Cruz and Clinton are tied in negative territory, while only Rubio (+1) and Kasich (+5) are viewed positively among Republicans.
That’s correct.
You contradict yourself. If it helps him get elected, by your thesis (not mine), he would do it, if only for that reason. I tend to think you have a walloping case of TDS, but maybe try this again after you tighten up the logic, and lets see if it flies then.
So that’s the calculation before us. Alienate Trump’s base, and the party will lose people who were not already strongly committed to vote Republican. They’re there for the entertainment. Alienate the conservatives, and the Republican party will become the cartoon the left says it has always been.
Not very dispositive. Need to connect dots. there are places where red is above green, lots of places. What were Reagan’s negatives when he was down to Carter by 15 points or so. All it took was one debate and he blew Carter away.
You are onto it.
He ‘would’ lose. Stop sulking, start campaigning.
So the same people who know everything insisted we needed to pass amnesty, appealing to non citizens, or the Republican Party would never win another election. A potential candidate, among the ruling class, claims breaking immigration laws is an act of love.
Then, some untamed civilian says he’s going to build a wall to stop Mexico from invading us with murders and rapists.
Which candidate had the better consultant? Assuming the consultant was retained to win votes rather than approval from the NYT.
Why doesn’t the GOP just steal Trump’s main issue. Have Cruz announce he will sign simple legislation that continues extending existing wall and fencing. He will revoke all the executives orders issued by Obama and he will instruct the border patrol to follow existing laws.
The GOPe can make sure that legislation never reaches his desk and he can issue new executive orders to replace Obamas. He wins the general and the Republicans keep the gravy train rolling?
Is TDS “Trump Derangement Syndrome?” I do have it… no question, but I’m in good company. If ever there was a candidate worthy of a DS it would be T. But never mind; my point is that I don’t think Trump is a.) a conservative (at least insofar as I have come to understand the term and admire the philosophy thanks to the gracious tutelage of the Ricochetti), and b.) interested in anyone or anything other than himself. This is perfectly obvious every time he opens his mouth. To quote myself, “check the pronouns.” Because he’s not interested in anyone but himself, he has no interest in the plight of inner city black Americans. I do. Just one of the many, many ways I differ from the Donald.
Um, Trump did go to Chicago, and that wasn’t support I saw on my TV.
And they assume that losing 20% or more of Republicans would not hurt him.
15% might just not vote, but 5% would likely vote Hillary, and that is a 10 point swing.
Maybe he makes that up, maybe he doesn’t.
I actually HOPE he doesn’t.
4 years of Hillary is a small price to pay to prove that Donald Trump and his kind of Republican is not a way to solve anything.
Is there still talk of a third Party? Because we need one. And it might take from both Trump and the felon Hillary.
I would not want Trump to win. Even if he somehow could, that seems the worse option. Even than Hillary, crazy as that sounds.
NEVERTRUMP because winning with Trump is losing our country.
Putting Country above Party is the only right thing to do.
Cruz and Rubio have said that they will complete the fencing and reinforce the border. They’ve also said they will overturn Obama’s executive orders. Next question.
And what happens in 2020? You have no friends any more, nobody will vote for your guy, there is no party, and nobody cares what you have to say about anything?
I doubt this is true. Many of his employees are black, and he probably cares a lot about them. I think you have jumped to conclusions.
I think Trump can win, but these thoughts are all gut, there is no way to know. If I thought he was a conservative, had the political courage he pretends to have and the understanding to manage the financial crisis that will follow any real tax and regulatory reform, I’d be out there throwing rocks at the protesters. I’m too old to just slug them.
Frank Soto is dead right. Relatively unknown people’s favorability ratings are very swingable. Name recognition counts for a lot. When you have a well known candidate, the ratings wont change much. That is Hillary’s problem, she is too well known to really change how most voters think of her. She could hope for a ten percent swing tops. Republics tend to drop in this category, but not always.
Trump is low, and will probably only get lower, but play the best case scenario (if you are a supporter), and he goes into election night with only -19 favorability. That is not a winning number.
Put me in the Never Trump crowd. I don’t hate the man, I find him somewhat amusing. I also find Bill Murray amusing, I would never vote for him either.
If it comes to Trump vs. some Dem, I will have to find a third party candidate for whom I can conscientiously vote. I’ve never understood and always been frustrated with third party voters (It’s a vote for the other side!), but I will find myself joining them if there isn’t a real republican, much less conservative, as our candidate.
“Inner city black Americans.” I’m not saying he’s a racist. I’m saying the plight of inner city black Americans isn’t one of his yuuuge issues. If it were, I would have more interest in him.
That’s roughly in the noise, and I bet it includes Republicans who have a negative opinion of Trump but will never vote for Hillary. In addition, Bernie Sanders has refused to bring up Clinton’s corruption and email scandals, so her negatives can still grow. Hopefully if Trump does win the Republican nomination, we will rally around him.
Of course if Republicans are going to throw this election for Hillary, either by not voting or voting for another candidate, then shame on us. We deserve the SCOTUS picks she will have, the executive orders she will sign, and eventually in four to eight years, she will have a Democratic congress and be able to pass whatever she wants.
As I said elsewhere, letting Hillary win gives us nothing. In fact it allows the Liberals to rule the day. That gives us less than nothing. At least in a coalition with the Trump nationalists gives us something.
Agreed. If part of the coalition abandons the winner, then there is no reason for other legs of the coalition to play along in the future.
Like its a yuuuge issue for any of the other candidates.
The Trump bandwagon has indeed made roadkill of the rules of politics. Don’t expect it to adhere to further predictions.
#NeverTrump=President Hillary Clinton.
You break it, you own it.
Apparently Trump supporters have failed to convince the majority of other Republicans that Trump is suitable to be president. How much responsibility do they have for being unable to present rational arguments for the man? How much responsibility do they have for being unable to properly address all the reasonable objections about such a deplorable candidate? Are you sure Trump and his supporters haven’t “broken it” already? Since many Trump supporters respond to rational arguments with vitriol and verbal abuse throughout social media how much will they own when Trump, if he’s lucky enough to be elected, destroys the conservative movement, destroys the Republican Party and aligns himself more with Democrat Socialists on any number of policies or legislation that expands federal regulation and results in a more oppressive bureaucracy and possibly federal insolvency?
If Trump and Trump supporters can’t convince Republicans, conservatives and others to cast their ballots for Trump, even with the prospect of a Hillary presidency, then maybe there are good reasons why thoughtful people in good conscience might resist voting for the two nominees and writing in someone else. But go ahead look for others to scapegoat for Trump’s unsuitability. Don’t look at Trump himself. Scapegoating seems to be part of his con, so I suppose it’s to be expected.
Newt Gingrich (see OP) wasn’t talking about the other candidates. He was explaining why he thought Trump could/would/should win.
Well, better put: If he was a principled conservative (or a principled person at all) who is not deliberately unpleasant, rude, crass, and disgusting – or, if he was a completely different person – you might have more interest in him.
I’m inclined to agree. In the meantime, as I said on the podcast, when I look at the wall of presidents, I roll my eyes at William Clinton, I am annoyed at Barack Obama… If I saw Donald J. Trump on the wall, it would no longer be a wall of presidents. It would be a joke, and a bad joke at that.
That’s nonsense.
Of course you could say Trump = President Hillary Clinton and be a bit more accurate. If he is the nominee, she wins. Easy solution to that is to nominate literally anybody else.
Righhhhht. So what? Presumably you prefer some other candidate, whether NG mentioned his/her name or not. You dislike T for reasons that might very well apply to any other candidate, which leaves me then totally baffled that only T’s (supposed) failings register with you.