Contributor Post Created with Sketch. What GOP Voters Are Thinking: A Snapshot from Maryland

 

Donald-trump-marylandBefore our local Maryland primary on April 26 — part of the so-called I-95 set of primaries that was Donald Trump’s penultimate victory before his clinching Indiana win — I spent a couple of days canvassing for John Kasich and local candidates door to door, at public places, and at the polls in Frederick and Montgomery Counties. I’ve done this a couple of times before elections and have never regretted it; I always learn a lot about what’s on other people’s minds.

A few takeaways from this season:

1) Trump had plenty of support in the places I went, across a considerable diversity of voters at many income and education levels. Unlike Trump supporters I had encountered on Twitter, most of his real-life voters were not angry or combative, though some were.

2) I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. The two main reasons were, first, that he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives, and, second, that he was too negative or couldn’t get along with people. I myself would have rated Trump as worse than Cruz on this latter dimension but Trump supporters assured me that his trash talk was just talk and that on some level he wanted to get along with everyone unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

3) Related to 2), while I had tended to see Trump and Kasich as opposites, many voters liked both or were undecided between them. One theme was that both understood business and would be good for the economy. Another was that both got things done in contrast to Cruz who you could expect to stand in the way of a workable deal just to make some point or other.

4) People really want to go with the winning side. That Trump was going to win (at least win the Republican nomination) was seen as a powerful reason for supporting him and some voters felt they would be throwing their vote away by voting for Kasich (who came in second in my state) even if they thought the Ohioan would make the better president.

These opinions are all different from my own, to one extent or another, but that’s the point of going out to talk to other people instead of staying home talking with one’s own circle.

There are 41 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Mate De Coolidge

    This goes to show that branding works.

    • #1
    • May 5, 2016, at 11:56 AM PST
    • Like
  2. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Contributor

    I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    Huh? Don’t people see the causal link between their actions and the outcome? Maybe, if enough people got together and voted for the guy they thought was best for the job rather than the guy they thought was going to win… the guy they thought was best for the job might win.

    The absurdity is painful.

    • #2
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:04 PM PST
    • Like
  3. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    Walter Olson:…unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

    But for many of us the enemy is uncontrolled government spending, that which supports Maryland’s economy. Cruz should NOT have been popular is Maryland.

    People can say that you have to try to win everywhere, but that is unrealistic unless you are a swishy moderate or a political wild card, unknown who contradicts himself like Trump. People who stand for principals can’t afford to contradict themselves constantly.

    • #3
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:06 PM PST
    • Like
  4. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer Member

    Majestyk:I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    Huh? Don’t people see the causal link between their actions and the outcome? Maybe, if enough people got together and voted for the guy they thought was best for the job rather than the guy they thought was going to win… the guy they thought was best for the job might win.

    The absurdity is painful.

    Nothing new under the sun.

    The bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon whereby people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override. The bandwagon effect has wide implications, but is commonly seen in politics and consumer behavior.

    • #4
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:19 PM PST
    • Like
  5. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    Walter Olson:I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. … he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives

    Maryland is ranked #46 by “Rank by percentage identifying as ‘very religious'”.

    The four less religious states are small states with only 3 or 4 electoral votes — Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

    In comparison, California ranks #31, New Jersey ranks #34, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity

    • #5
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:21 PM PST
    • Like
  6. donald todd Inactive

    The Cloaked Gaijin:

    Walter Olson:…unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

    But for many of us the enemy is uncontrolled government spending, that which supports Maryland’s economy. Cruz should NOT have been popular is Maryland.

    People can say that you have to try to win everywhere, but that is unrealistic unless you are a swishy moderate or a political wild card, unknown who contradicts himself like Trump. People who stand for principals can’t afford to contradict themselves constantly.

    I believe that Reagan had a 50-state strategy. A national election should include a 50-state strategy for a national party. I would be surprised if either Trump or the Republicans would fail to try and achieve as much turnout as possible across this country.

    • #6
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:23 PM PST
    • Like
  7. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    donald todd:

    The Cloaked Gaijin:

    Walter Olson:…unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

    But for many of us the enemy is uncontrolled government spending, that which supports Maryland’s economy. Cruz should NOT have been popular is Maryland.

    People can say that you have to try to win everywhere, but that is unrealistic unless you are a swishy moderate or a political wild card, unknown who contradicts himself like Trump. People who stand for principals can’t afford to contradict themselves constantly.

    I believe that Reagan had a 50-state strategy. A national election should include a 50-state strategy for a national party. I would be surprised if either Trump or the Republicans would fail to try and achieve as much turnout as possible across this country.

    Reagan’s America was a different country with a third-party candidate running in 1980.

    Lincoln didn’t have a strategy to win every state either. What a yuge loser he was getting less than 40% of the popular vote!

    • #7
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:28 PM PST
    • Like
  8. Dan Hanson Thatcher

    Majestyk:I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    Huh? Don’t people see the causal link between their actions and the outcome? Maybe, if enough people got together and voted for the guy they thought was best for the job rather than the guy they thought was going to win… the guy they thought was best for the job might win.

    The absurdity is painful.

    But the thing is, there is almost no causal link between the way one individual votes and the eventual outcome. So you have to ask yourself, why do people vote at all? Why do people take an interest in politics if their own choices are almost irrelevant? From a utility theory standpoint, there is almost no utility in voting – certainly not enough utility to warrant the effort.

    So people vote for other reasons than to actually change an election. They vote to signal virtue, they vote to feel better about themselves, they vote because it’s a duty, they vote to set an example for their children, whatever. The value of the actual vote is almost zero, but the value of the intangibles may be high.

    Looked at this way, it’s not surprising that people would gravitate towards the front-runner. Low information voters may logically use that as a proxy for quality – if the guy’s the front-runner, clearly a lot of people like him, so I’ll vote along with the crowd. They also might vote for the front-runner because if the person they vote for wins, they may feel more invested in the results of the election and of the policy directions of the administration.

    None of this is ‘logical’. But then, neither is voting, when looked at from an individual standpoint. The real wonder is that so many people choose to vote at all.

    For people who don’t pay attention to politics, Trump is that billionaire guy who is always on TV. He’s the guy who grills people on ‘The Apprentice” and makes tough decisions about who to fire. He says what he thinks, and not what some handler tells him to say. He’s refreshing. And wouldn’t a change be nice?

    I can see all that weighing in favor of Trump, but then people may hesitate because it seems a little crazy to elect a guy like Trump. A little scary, even. But then you hear that he’s topping the polls, and you think, “Well, if so many people are voting for him, I’m not totally crazy to do it either.” Trump is probably therefore more likely to benefit from a ‘preference cascade’ than any other candidate – the mere fact of his winning a poll or a state negates his negatives to many people who don’t pay attention to the content of what he’s saying.

    • #8
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:29 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Contributor

    Dan Hanson:But the thing is, there is almost no causal link between the way one individual votes and the eventual outcome. So you have to ask yourself, why do people vote at all? Why do people take an interest in politics if their own choices are almost irrelevant? From a utility theory standpoint, there is almost no utility in voting – certainly not enough utility to warrant the effort.

    So people vote for other reasons than to actually change an election. They vote to signal virtue, they vote to feel better about themselves, they vote because it’s a duty, they vote to set an example for their children, whatever. The value of the actual vote is almost zero, but the value of the intangibles may be high.

    Looked at this way, it’s not surprising that people would gravitate towards the front-runner. Low information voters may logically use that as a proxy for quality – if the guy’s the front-runner, clearly a lot of people like him, so I’ll vote along with the crowd. They also might vote for the front-runner because if the person they vote for wins, they may feel more invested in the results of the election and of the policy directions of the administration.

    None of this is ‘logical’. But then, neither is voting, when looked at from an individual standpoint. The real wonder is that so many people choose to vote at all.

    For people who don’t pay attention to politics, Trump is that billionaire guy who is always on TV. He’s the guy who grills people on ‘The Apprentice” and makes tough decisions about who to fire. He says what he thinks, and not what some handler tells him to say. He’s refreshing. And wouldn’t a change be nice?

    I can see all that weighing in favor of Trump, but then people may hesitate because it seems a little crazy to elect a guy like Trump. A little scary, even. But then you hear that he’s topping the polls, and you think, “Well, if so many people are voting for him, I’m not totally crazy to do it either.” Trump is probably therefore more likely to benefit from a ‘preference cascade’ than any other candidate – the mere fact of his winning a poll or a state negates his negatives to many people who don’t pay attention to the content of what he’s saying.

    This sounds to me like “people who exclusively purchase name brands shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

    • #9
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:34 PM PST
    • Like
  10. donald todd Inactive

    Majestyk:I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    Huh? Don’t people see the causal link between their actions and the outcome? Maybe, if enough people got together and voted for the guy they thought was best for the job rather than the guy they thought was going to win… the guy they thought was best for the job might win.

    The absurdity is painful.

    What seems to have escaped the notice of a lot of people is that one cannot do the job unless one is elected. I’ll certainly be told (again) that Trump won’t win the general (the oracles will appear) but it is a certainty that Ted, Marco, Carly, Jeb!, Scott, Bobby, Mike and the rest won’t even be on the ballot for the general.

    I don’t think a massive write-in campaign will succeed. If it would, Bernie would be the beneficiary.

    • #10
    • May 5, 2016, at 12:48 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher

    My first choice was a Fiorina/Rubio ticket. I came to Trump slowly but ultimately convinced that he would shake things up in a good way as I have been tired of the old men who have chosen our candidates in backroom deals. I have been amazed by the fact that nearly ALL the Republicans I know in real life have been Trumpers since about halfway through this election.

    Throughout these months Ricochet and the National Review crowd have not reflected the reality of the grass roots voters. Bill Kristol is absolutely ridiculous in talking about a third party candidate. He reminds me of Karl Rove the night we lost Ohio. Or better yet, Baghdad Bob.

    • #11
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:01 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Front Seat Cat Member

    I know a cross brand of people who voted Trump – rich, working class, male, female, different ages – you can’t lump everyone together that they just go with branding or simply like that he takes no guff. His success is crossing many boundaries.

    • #12
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:16 PM PST
    • Like
  13. Duane Oyen Member

    The Cloaked Gaijin:

    Walter Olson:…unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

    But for many of us the enemy is uncontrolled government spending, that which supports Maryland’s economy. Cruz should NOT have been popular is Maryland.

    ………..

    I mildly disagree. I don’t think that the counties to the North and East of DC care as much about “uncontrolled government spending” as they do about “growth in government employment”.

    • #13
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:17 PM PST
    • Like
  14. Hoyacon Member

    Wow–you found a Republican in Montgomery County!

    • #14
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:26 PM PST
    • Like
  15. Sheila S. Member

    I voted for Cruz in the Maryland primary. He was tied with Kasich as my second-to-least favorite candidate, but since he was most likely to beat my least favorite (Trump), he’s the one I voted for. The reasons Cruz was so low-ranked for me are the reasons given in the op: he is so in-your-face with his religion (as opposed to his faith) – and I am a reasonably devout Christian – and his demonstrated inability to get along with the people he works with.

    I’m as surprised by the level of support for Trump among my fellow Republicans in Southern Maryland as I am appalled. And Kasich seems to be preferable to Cruz among several of my friends who can’t stand Trump.

    This whole situation has robbed me of my usual enjoyment of election year politics.

    • #15
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:30 PM PST
    • Like
  16. TKC1101 Inactive

    Walter Olson: I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. The two main reasons were, first, that he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives, and, second, that he was too negative or couldn’t get along with people. I myself would have rated Trump as worse than Cruz on this latter dimension but Trump supporters assured me that his trash talk was just talk and that on some level he wanted to get along with everyone unlike Cruz who really did make enemies.

    To my view , this one is not that hard to understand.

    Many Americans, religious or secular are uncomfortable with excessive displays or pronouncements of faith beyond generic homilies, such as “Thank the Lord”, or “God Willing”.

    In Oregon the local GOP has become a tiny party almost in third place because of focus on what were perceived to be religious issues. The joke in the suburbs here “The Democrats just take your money, the Republicans want to take your money and force you to go to church.”

    The negative Cruz versus Trump is the issue of the introvert versus the extrovert. Cruz may be the nicest guy in the world, but his body language said he was uncomfortable with people and comfortable with words. Introverts have this problem.

    Trump is negative to his adversaries and effusive and smiling to his friends. Classic extrovert. He makes his crowd feel like a group of his personal friends. If you are with him, he is with you. If you get knocked down, he will get your assailant out of there. He is on your side.

    It was genius to get mad at the demonstrators and show temper. It was incredibly stupid to attack the one person who seemed to care about the crowd the demonstrators were trying to disrupt. Losing your temper at bad guys is considered a show of what you care about to most people.

    • #16
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:45 PM PST
    • Like
  17. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    All this Cruz body language/religion stuff makes me sick.

    It’s the brain that counts.

    If it was Bobby Jindal, you guys wouldn’t like his accent.

    If it was Rand Paul, you wouldn’t like his hair … and his accent.

    If it was Scott Walker, you’d probably find him too dull.

    People need to grow up. Now wonder Trump won! You were playing his game.

    One empty-headed candidate and big mouth to rule them all!?!

    • #17
    • May 5, 2016, at 1:57 PM PST
    • Like
  18. WI Con Member

    Kaisich? What were you thinking?

    I kid, I kid (sort of)

    • #18
    • May 5, 2016, at 2:03 PM PST
    • Like
  19. TKC1101 Inactive

    The Cloaked Gaijin:All this Cruz body language/religion stuff makes me sick.

    It’s the brain that counts.

    If it was Bobby Jindal, you guys wouldn’t like his accent.

    If it was Rand Paul, you wouldn’t like his hair … and his accent.

    If it was Scott Walker, you’d probably find him too dull.

    People need to grow up. Now wonder Trump won! You were playing his game.

    One empty-headed candidate and big mouth to rule them all!?!

    Okay. Got your message.

    • #19
    • May 5, 2016, at 2:17 PM PST
    • Like
  20. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    TKC1101:

    Walter Olson: I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. The two main reasons were, first, that he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives…

    To my view , this one is not that hard to understand.

    Many Americans, religious or secular are uncomfortable with excessive displays or pronouncements of faith beyond generic homilies, such as “Thank the Lord”, or “God Willing”.

    Largely seconded.

    Cruz kicking-off his campaign at Liberty U really portended his problems this way.

    • #20
    • May 5, 2016, at 2:35 PM PST
    • Like
  21. Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    Cruz had a game plan: turn out the evangelicals as never before. I thought it daft, but it got him a lot farther than I expected. In the process, however, it turned off a lot of non-evangelicals. These last few weeks, Trump got the Catholic vote in New York and elsewhere. I think that what Walter Olson saw in Maryland reflects the manner in which Catholics, mainstream Protestants, and Jews are uncomfortable with what one might call the evangelical ethos.

    I grew up Catholic in Oklahoma, which is the buckle on the Bible belt, and I always had the feeling that the more demonstrative people were about their religion, the more wary of them one should be. I learned in time to be more appreciative of this ethos, but sometimes — when it is excessive — it still gives me the creeps.

    I very much regret that Cruz did not sweep. He is, in fact, a serious constitutional conservative with a first-class education, and he would make a fabulous President. But the game plan did not work.

    • #21
    • May 5, 2016, at 6:12 PM PST
    • Like
  22. Douglas Inactive

    Majestyk:I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    “Once I get rolling enough, they’ll back me because I’m the winner” is part and parcel of basic human psychology. “When given the choice of the weak horse and the strong horse…” etc.

    Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney depended on this psychology to get their nominations: even though they were unpopular, if they could raise enough money and dominate the airwaves, they knew they could build up a head of steam and create an aura of inevitability about themselves, and pretty soon, primary voters would go “Oh well, he’s going to win anyway”. John McCain bragged that the voters didn’t like him, but that they’d have no choice but to vote for him in the primaries after a certain point.

    This is why Jeb Bush jumping in and then raising $100 million damn near instantly just depressed/angered primary voters: “Oh no, not this **** again”.

    • #22
    • May 5, 2016, at 9:47 PM PST
    • Like
  23. Sweezle Member

    Majestyk:I have to confess that I don’t get people: “I’m voting for Trump because he’s going to win, not because he’s the best for the job.”

    Huh? Don’t people see the causal link between their actions and the outcome? Maybe, if enough people got together and voted for the guy they thought was best for the job rather than the guy they thought was going to win… the guy they thought was best for the job might win.

    The absurdity is painful.

    I will vote for Trump because I like his stance on trade, NATO, the military & the VA, repairing infrastructure, controlling our borders, reducing regulations that cripple small businesses, and his love of America. I don’t want a pastor-in-chief.

    • #23
    • May 5, 2016, at 10:01 PM PST
    • Like
  24. Mister D Member

    The Cloaked Gaijin:

    Walter Olson:I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. … he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives

    Maryland is ranked #46 by “Rank by percentage identifying as ‘very religious’”.

    The four less religious states are small states with only 3 or 4 electoral votes — Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

    In comparison, California ranks #31, New Jersey ranks #34, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity

    And (if I count correctly at this late hour) only 9 states where “very religious” tops 50%. With 14 of the 20 most populous states reporting less than 40%, that should be a red flag to someone like Cruz.

    • #24
    • May 5, 2016, at 11:07 PM PST
    • Like
  25. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    Mister D:

    The Cloaked Gaijin:

    Walter Olson:I was a little shocked at how unpopular Ted Cruz was. … he “wore his religion on his sleeve,” as one voter put it, which seemed to have alienated even many voters for whom religion was very important in their own lives

    Maryland is ranked #46 by “Rank by percentage identifying as ‘very religious’”.

    The four less religious states are small states with only 3 or 4 electoral votes — Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

    In comparison, California ranks #31, New Jersey ranks #34, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity

    And (if I count correctly at this late hour) only 9 states where “very religious” tops 50%. With 14 of the 20 most populous states reporting less than 40%, that should be a red flag to someone like Cruz.

    Trump won 8 of the 9 most religious states of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia — everything except #2 Mormon Utah with Oklahoma and Texas ranked #10 and #11. Trump won Kentucky #12 and Indiana #13, etc.

    • #25
    • May 6, 2016, at 12:23 AM PST
    • Like
  26. OkieSailor Member

    The Cloaked Gaijin:All this Cruz body language/religion stuff makes me sick.

    It’s the brain that counts.

    If it was Bobby Jindal, you guys wouldn’t like his accent.

    If it was Rand Paul, you wouldn’t like his hair … and his accent.

    If it was Scott Walker, you’d probably find him too dull.

    People need to grow up. Now wonder Trump won! You were playing his game.

    One empty-headed candidate and big mouth to rule them all!?!

    My sentiments exactly, thanks for saying it. I weep for our country. How can Liberty continue under these conditions?

    • #26
    • May 6, 2016, at 1:25 AM PST
    • Like
  27. ToryWarWriter Thatcher

    One of the great Ironies is that Cruz ran as a religious conservative, and they all broke for Trump.

    Which to me means you don’t have to court that social con vote anymore. As they abandoned it themselves.

    Cruz ended up getting the anti-trump and very Conservative and half the Tea Party vote (the real Tea Party vote I think).

    Evangelicals all went for Trump and it was to late for Cruz to reshape his message. The only two states that really went for Cruz in Evangelicalism were Maine and Iowa. Everywhere else went for trump.

    • #27
    • May 6, 2016, at 5:54 AM PST
    • Like
  28. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Contributor

    Dan Hanson:But the thing is, there is almost no causal link between the way one individual votes and the eventual outcome. So you have to ask yourself, why do people vote at all? Why do people take an interest in politics if their own choices are almost irrelevant? From a utility theory standpoint, there is almost no utility in voting – certainly not enough utility to warrant the effort.

    I’ve been chewing on this and I think this is a misinterpretation of utility theory – it’s essentially the same logic to say that if you are working on a large project that your particular contribution is trivial and thus useless. That’s obviously not true.

    If your project is “tugging a locomotive into position,” your contribution to this task by itself is unlikely to appear consequential, but it nonetheless is, no matter how dilute. Add to this that it would be especially galling to those who are tugging the locomotive if some select number of people took it upon themselves to push the train in the opposite direction because “the train doesn’t want to move anyways and I’m in favor of inertia.”

    An election is a large project with a ton of inertia. It takes a lot of people pulling in unison in order to get it moving.

    • #28
    • May 6, 2016, at 6:31 AM PST
    • Like
  29. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Contributor

    Sweezle:I will vote for Trump because I like his stance on trade, NATO, the military & the VA, repairing infrastructure, controlling our borders, reducing regulations that cripple small businesses, and his love of America. I don’t want a pastor-in-chief.

    Nor do I, and this spelled out my initial resistance to Cruz – he was obviously pandering to religious conservatives and hoping to essentially run the table early in order to build an insurmountable lead.

    Clearly, that didn’t happen.

    On the host of other topics… How? This gets us back to the most basic and obviously true criticism of Trump: He is utterly unspecific or flatly contradictory in his own statements regarding how he will pursue policy on each of these fronts.

    He appears to be in favor of sparking trade wars via a Smoot-Hawley style tariff and disbanding NATO, which has been the appropriate counterweight to Russian aggression for 3/4 of a century.

    Repairing infrastructure is a task best handled at the local and state level, and on that front, Trump has never met a federal regulation or mandate that he hasn’t liked, apparently.

    On border security, he says he’s for building a wall, but he’s also in favor of “touchback amnesty” when other candidates were accused of vile betrayal for supporting more strenuous internal security measures.

    For those who are rightly concerned about a unitary executive branch, Trump’s ascent should be no comfort given his penchant for making declarations about how he will act and apparent lack of understanding of the concept of “separation of powers” and “Constitutional limits on the executive.”

    • #29
    • May 6, 2016, at 6:47 AM PST
    • Like
  30. donald todd Inactive

    goldwaterwoman:My first choice was a Fiorina/Rubio ticket. I came to Trump slowly but ultimately convinced that he would shake things up in a good way as I have been tired of the old men who have chosen our candidates in backroom deals. I have been amazed by the fact that nearly ALL the Republicans I know in real life have been Trumpers since about halfway through this election.

    Throughout these months Ricochet and the National Review crowd have not reflected the reality of the grass roots voters. Bill Kristol is absolutely ridiculous in talking about a third party candidate. He reminds me of Karl Rove the night we lost Ohio. Or better yet, Baghdad Bob.

    Thank you. I really enjoyed this missive. Like you I did not arrive full blown for Trump but he did grow on me over time as my early favorites flagged and dropped by the wayside.

    By some fluke I was channel surfing when I hit Moral Swamp NBC and Mike Murphy, who had so ably advised Jeb!, was being interviewed after Trump took Indiana. Murphy defended Jeb! and the positions espoused by Jeb! Then Murphy decried how badly Trump was going to be crushed by Hillary! Given Murphy’s track record he should have sewn his lips shut.

    Then it struck me. Mike Murphy and his ilk remind me of lemmings.

    • #30
    • May 6, 2016, at 7:09 AM PST
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2