Donald Trump

The Republican Party Realizes It Has A Donald Trump Problem

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

Wait a minute—is Donald Trump actually going to win the Republican presidential nomination?

All throughout the summer, critics (including me) dismissed Trump as a novelty item—amusing for a moment, but thoroughly disposable and certain to be disposed of.

But now it's the end of October, and Trump is still leading the GOP polls. And that has the party establishment—the various and sundry party strategists and influencers and money-givers who've made it their business to shape the GOP's future—more than a little freaked out.

Over the past few days, party elites have begun, for the first time, to acknowledge that Trump could plausibly win the nomination. And as Byron York reports in The Washington Examiner, some of them are preparing to try to stop that from happening. One unnamed "leading conservative" tells York that the prospect of a Trump candidacy would inspire "massive resistance." Another source hints at the possibility of a massive barrage of attack ads in crucial early primary states.

As York notes, these would not be the first anti-Trump ads to run; the Club for Growth, which would likely be involved in any new effort, has already hit Trump once, sparking amusingly over-the-top legal threats from Trump. But the next round could be significantly bigger, and might, as York writes, "lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party's likely nominee."

Republicans, or at least those in its professional class, have come to the conclusion that they have a Donald Trump problem. This is not wrong. But the problem is deeper than many seem willing to acknowledge. 

Party elites have cast their fight as an ideological battle to save the GOP from Trump. As the source who predicted massive resistance tells York, Trump "is not a conservative." 

I basically agree with that assessment. It is hard to describe someone who has supported socialized medicine, eminent domain, and tax hikes as in any way conservative. He is not exactly a liberal, either. Instead, there is no ideological rigor or policy coherence to be found in his campaign. He is best described as an opportunist. 

But what does it signal that so much much of the Republican party's voter base has so enthusiastically supported a non-conservative for this long, and that Trump has now become a serious contender for its nomination? From this one might reasonably conclude that being a conservative may not be an essential requirement for the Republican party's presidential candidate. 

And what that, in turn, suggests is that the GOP of 2015 is not a party that is particularly driven by ideological or policy commitments, but instead is motivated in large part by vacuous, reactionary Trumpism. GOP elites may be trying to rescue the Republican party from Donald Trump, but what if there's nothing left to save? 

Elites themselves bear some responsibility here. What happened to the GOP happened long before Trump's campaign, in part because its elected leaders in Congress and elsewhere allowed and even encouraged it, harnessing the base's untempered enthusiasms to their own purposes over the years. It is more than a little bit ironic that the party's establishment is now attacking Trump for doing roughly the same thing.

Trump isn't the cause of the Republican party's troubles so much as their avatar and spokesperson. And the Republican party's Trump problem isn't Trump so much as it is the Republican party itself. 

NEXT: Capitalism Is Good and Bernienomics Doesn't Work

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is hard to describe someone who has supported currently supports socialized medicine, eminent domain, and tax hikes as in any way conservative.

    FTFY

    1. Which is proof that those positions are conservative, silly Pete.

    2. The Republican Party itself isn’t in any way conservative.

      1. A good chunk of its voters are not, at least not economically. And the part that is economically conservative are often complete toadies to the left on cultural issues or just corporatist assholes looking for a government handout.

        1. Economically conservative, socially conservative.

          Umm, dude, do you even know where the fuck you are right now???

          I… don’t think libertarianism means what you think it means. In fact, it doesn’t. At all.

          Go away.

          1. Yar, *socially liberal, not socially conservative.

      2. Sure they are. You just don’t like the way “Conservative” is defined.

        I’m sick of saying this but……Libertarian != Conservative (not even kinda).

        1. this * 100000000

    3. Which shows just how dis functional the Republican Party has become, when Trump starts looking good. I blame the Nixonian big government pricks in the GOP leadership for this.

      1. “Which shows just how dis functional the Republican Party has become”…um it has been disfunctional since day 1

      2. “Which shows just how dis functional the Republican Party has become”…um it has been disfunctional since day 1

    4. Rino’s big money could “lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party’s likely nominee.”

      If successful, not only would they destroy Trump’s nomination but they would CERTAINLY destroy the GOP for the next 75 years if not longer.

      The party was so splintered in 2012 they couldn’t even get republicans to come out and vote. If they go ahead with this disaster they will drive a wedge so deep it will break the party permanently. Mean while Hillary will nominate and receive 2 or 3 supreme court justices effectively turning the country into a socialist state for the rest of our lives.

      As if the GOP’s Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs the last 50 years wasn’t enough to destroy it, now they’ve found a new way to commit political suicide.

      IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And the socialists won.

  2. I think the bigger problem is that Cruz and Rubio aren’t natural born Citizens. Rubio is on Fox right now.

    1. Test tube babies?

      1. The qualification is not “naturally conceived Citizen”.

        1. Obviously you’re just an Obama apologist….

        2. Obviously you’re just an Obama apologist….

    2. Professor Wik. E. Pedia tells me that Rubio was born in Miami to Cuban parents and Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.

      Rubio seems to me to be an anchor baby entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

      I’m not sure with Cruz.

      1. As the child of an American citizen, Cruz was also American from birth.

        1. Cruz is definitely not an nbC.

          US v Wong Kim Ark

          “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF CITIZENS,…” (emphasis mine)

          1. I bet the USA insisted that Cruz’s father was under “the jurisdiction of the United States” when it came time for him to pay income tax. It follows that he was similarly under US jurisdiction when fathering children.

            Since the US Government insists that all US citizens fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, what you’ve quoted sounds like a whole bunch of meaningless words.

            1. Hu? Cruz’s father was not a US citizen or living in the US when Cruz was born.

        2. Yeah, but that make him a natural born citizen as the constitution requires?

      2. Both of them being made citizens by virtue of law were naturalized at birth.

        1. Even if you argued Cruz was, Rubio wasn’t. He was born here.

          1. If “natural” means without the requirement of law, he’s not. You also have the problem of children born in the country to transient or illegal aliens being eligible while those born outside the country to two citizen parents not being. Doesn’t really sound fair.

            1. You do not understand what naturalization means. I can call my toyota a BMW all I want, but it doesn’t make it one.

              1. It means “to be made as if natural”, duh.

            2. What ? Cruz’s mother had a C-Section ?

              1. It doesn’t matter, he was born in Canada.

            3. Claiming that he’s a pod person would be a stronger argument. I’d stick with that.

              1. I suppose you could also claim Miami is really North Cuba.

              2. A pod person is a replica of the original so if the original wasn’t eligible neither would the pod person be.

            4. When has ‘fair’ ever had anything to do with the law?

        2. This is completely wrong. How do I know? I worked in immigration for years and I had to regularly make this distinction. If you are born outside the US to one or two US parents, depending on the year, you only had to be legitimate and visit the US before you turned 18. That is it. Jus Sanguinis. Look it up.

          1. Yes, to be a citizen. Natural born citizen is a subset of that.

            US v Wong Kim Ark

            “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF CITIZENS,…” (emphasis mine)

            1. “Natural-born citizen” means a citizen at birth. By law, you are a citizen at birth if one of your parents is a citizen, etc., regardless of where you were born.

              Jus sanguinis is just as “natural born” as jus soli. Both are recognized in US law – jus solis in the 14th amendment, and jus sanguinis by statute.

              1. Really? So the word “natural” in the phrase has no meaning? Why didn’t they just say “born a citizen”? The Framers just liked fancy language? The Supreme Court also doesn’t agree with you.

                US v Wong Kim Ark

                “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF CITIZENS,…” (emphasis mine)

                1. I’m failing to understand your argument.

                  If “natural” has a meaning, its requirements are being met if an act of Congress confers “naturalization” at birth — and acts of Congress have done this. If at least one of Cruz’ parents meet the requirements set in the statute, this means Cruz is considered a natural born citizen.

                  1. If naturalized immigrants aren’t eligible what makes you think people naturalized at birth are eligible?

    3. Dude give it up the Birther shit was tired and lame the first time it was used against Obama, using it against Rubio and Cruz isn’t any better.

      1. Some of us care that the President is actually eligible to serve. It’s a pity you do not.

        1. Or, they do care but understand very simple constitutional law better than you do because you’re a moron. But I’m sure it’s what you said.

          1. Cite any law or federal court case specifically defining the phrase “natural born Citizen”.

            1. any law

              Any law or just American law? Because the phrase “natural born citizen” comes from the English common law tradition.

              1. Current American law. Does it? ECL says anyone born on English soil is a “natural born subject”. As of today those born in American Samoa to non citizen parents are not even citizens. They are US nationals.

                1. Current American law. Does it? ECL says anyone born on English soil is a “natural born subject”

                  Well, that’s the thing. As you know, common law is based on precedent, so when the phrase “natural born” was used, there was no need to define it through statute if they intended its meaning to be the same one as understood by common law.

                  As of today those born in American Samoa to non citizen parents are not even citizens. They are US nationals.

                  Which is the exception that proves the rule.

                  Congress has extended citizenship rights by birth to all inhabited territories except American Samoa

                  1. That’s a pretty big “If”. Since it was accepted without debate we’ll never really know. We do know Jay’s letter to Washington suggested it to guard against “foreign influence”. In addition a “citizen” is not a “subject”. The first may renounce their allegiance, the second may not. What I say it that right now there is no legally relevant definition of the phrase. What anyone says about it, including myself, is merely opinion. People think they know, but they don’t know. The definition has been lost to history.

                2. None of the first few presidents were born in the USA. It didn’t even fucking exist. So by your logic none of them should’ve been allowed to serve. In fact, by your definition of “natural born” absolutely no one would’ve been eligible to serve as the first president because they would’ve had to been born in a country that didn’t exist.

                  1. OMG. Try reading Article 2 ignoramus. They were grandfathered in.

            2. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution counts as a law, does it not?

              No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

              1. That doesn’t give a definition.

          2. It’s been more than an hour Wanderer found anything yet? So you’re the moron.

            1. Wait, you are the one making the wacky claim (at least with regard to Rubio, I’ll acknowledge Cruz has some issues). The burden is on you to find evidence supporting it. See Russell’s teacup.

              1. There is no evidence. The phrase was accepted without debate by the Constitutional Convention. No law has been adopted nor any federal court case has ruled specifically as to the definition. As of right now there is no legally relevant definition for the phrase. That is my real point. It literally has no meaning.

                1. So you are now saying neither Cruz nor Rubio has anything to worry about? Ok…

                  1. No, I’m saying no one really has any idea if they are eligible or not. In Wong the standard was “born in the country” which excludes Cruz. In Elk it was not having allegiance to another government which excludes Rubio.

            2. Excuse the fuck out of me for having a life outside these comment sections, you fucking loser.

              As for “what I’ve found”:

              http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

              […]Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

              In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

              cont…

              1. The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

                This makes complete sense to anyone who hasn’t gone full fucking retard. Otherwise, you would run into such absurdities as the child of an Ambassador or military personnel who is born abroad while his parents were at a foreign duty station not being able to become President of the United States. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to exclude such people from being eligible for office.

                1. I find this particularly amusing as I was born to a father in the USAF and an American mother while he was stationed at RAF Lakenheath. We lived off-base, and I was born in the base hospital. Since Lakenheath is an RAF base where the USAF is allowed to operate (as opposed to a US base) it’s English territory, not American, and therefore I was born abroad to American citizens. I have British records of birth and a Certificate of Birth Abroad.

                  The rule is that if your parents are US citizens and at least one had a permanent residence in the US or a US territory at some point before the child’s birth, you’re automatically a citizen. Basically, the only time two US citizens don’t automatically make another citizen when they’re outside the US is if they both acquired citizenship by birth abroad but never actually lived in the US.

                  So yeah, as much as dude would like it to not be so, a person acquiring citizenship through circumstances of birth is a “natural” citizen.

                  1. Actually children of active duty military MAY be nbC’s. A person made a citizen by law is not natural. Natural means not requiring any law.

                2. ROFL. That’s not a law or federal court case. That has as much legal weight as the back of a cereal box. What a moron.

                  1. That has as much legal weight as the back of a cereal box. What a moron.

                    As opposed to yours, which has even less?

                    If this ever does get litigated, then it’s 95% likely that, barring a dramatic restructuring of the court (i.e., being packed by nativist morons like yourself), my interpretation would prevail. Yours wouldn’t.

                    1. It must have really hurt when you pulled that figure out of your ass. I predict that it’s 100% likely the SC would rule you’re a moron.

        2. Honestly, who the fuck cares? They are US citizens and have been their whole life. Close enough. What bad thing will happen (that wouldn’t happen had he been born in the US) if Ted Cruz gets elected? Will he let Canada take over or something?

          1. I do. Do you want to live in a nation ruled by law or not?

            1. Yes! But ruled only by really narrow interpretations of the law by fanatics on the internet? No!

              1. Cite the law defining nbC. It has to have the words “natural born” in it.

          2. Seriously. What an archaic and antiquated part of the Constitution. Bob Hope and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be ineligible to run, and those guys are about as American as it gets (regardless of their fitness for office).

            If it ever gets to the point where someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed is a serious candidate only to be foiled by constitutional ineligibility, the whole thing is already lost anyway.

            1. It is what it is.

              1. No, it isn’t. Your made up fantasy version of it is, but not reality.

                1. Cite the legally binding definition then.

                  1. Cite the legally binding definition then.

                    I don’t know that there is a single statutory or Constitutional definition of natural born citizen.

                    I am also not aware of anyone who thinks it excludes any person who was a citizen at birth.

                    Some are citizens at birth because they are born in the US. Others are citizens at birth because one of their parents is a US citizen. I know of no reason why “natural-born” would apply only to one and not the other.

                    1. The SC in Wong thought it excluded some people born citizens. They specifically said children born outside the country to citizens are naturalized. If your are naturalized you can’t be natural.

                    2. No, if they are “naturalized at birth,” then they are considered natural born. Acts of Congress decide what people are considered “natural born citizens,”

              2. a pedantic, ignored point no one takes seriously in the cases of rubio or cruz?

                agreed.

                1. I wouldn’t call one of the three qualifications for the most powerful office on the planet, pedantic. Then again as a libertarian I care about the objective rule of law. I guess you don’t.

                  1. Feel free to point us to a case where the courts have ruled that someone born outside the US to US citizens is not a natural-born citizen.

                    And no, Wong Kim Ark made no such ruling.

                    It merely pointed out that citizens born in the US are naturalized by virtue of the 14th, and that citizens born outside the US are naturalized by virtue of statute, etc.

                    1. I freely admit there is none. There is also none that rules the opposite. There is none that has ever ruled specifically concerning the definition on the phrase. As of now it literally have no meaning. Someone with standing has to sue Cruz or the RNC or whoever. Elk v Wilkins did rule that native Americans not taxed were not citizens. It’s not a simple question.

                    2. Native Americans not taxed are specifically excluded, though. So that’s not a great way of determining that the no taxes bit is a good way to determine that someone isn’t a natural born citizen.

                    3. It’s not about being not taxed it was about them oweing allegiance to a foreign government.

      2. I disagree. It’s a wonderful irony.

  3. Preside Trump or President Clinton?

    Fuck my life

    1. Don’t forget Sanders!

      You’re welcome.

      1. I would advise you not to overlook Cruz.

        Bush II attacked Cruz today. Why ? He is low in the polls.

        The establishment Republicans fear him and recognize his strength.

        1. They sense his power, and they seek the life essence.

  4. Trump/Biden 2016

    It’s what you deserve.

    1. “They’re not the presidential ticket this country needs, but they’re the ticket it deserves.”

  5. Vox writer Sudderman concern trolls republicans about Trump

    Me thinks Reason has a JournoList problem.

    1. Umm. Suderman, when he writes for reason, is writing for a “libertarian” readership so not how he’s concern trolling republicans.

      1. Anyone within the vicinity of Idle Hands would you be so kind as to slap Ezra Klein dick out of his mouth.

        1. Do you just throw random catch phrases together after drawing them out of a hat?

          1. Good for the gander calling the stove black?

            I seem to recall an article written by someone which cherry picked like 5 of the worse racists he could find and then claimed they represented a group of literally 100s of thousands if not millions of people and that they were all nativist racists by association.

      2. Suderman has three articles published at Vox, all movie reviews..

        1. Don’t try to argue with Josh, dude. And don’t make any sudden moves. He might mistake you for the skin-eating parakeets with reason writer’s faces that try to steal his eyelids while he’s sleeping. That’s why he stopped sleeping altogether. He’s not going to let them catch him by surprise.

          1. I seem to remember he once had something intelligent to say on some subject, but I can’t for the life of me recall what that was.

            1. The Big Bang?

          2. Psst hey Hugh

            Psst listen…

            *whispers* I totally called it and i was right.

            1. No you didn’t.

              1. Hey Cytotoxic you should totally read this article at vox written by Sudderman. It is targeted at Millennials like you. He even uses words like artisan and Craftsmanship which all you gen Ys love.

                https://archive.is/7UvMm

                Why you are there count the number of movies named in the article made by NBCUniversal and its subsidiaries….which is owns Vox….which payed Sudderman to write the article…..

        2. “Suderman has three articles published at Vox, all movie reviews..”

          Name one Vox writer cultural critic or otherwise who is not a complete sack of shit.

          1. You write for Vox?

          2. Suderman?

            Is it a trick question?

    2. Just like those liberal JournoListers at National Review.

  6. It is true that Trump isn’t a conservative. The problem is that the same people who are claiming he is not also claimed Mitt Romney was the only electable candidate and John Roberts was a reliable conservative justice and a lot of other things that turned out to be complete bullshit.

    You read main line Republican opinion writers like Jonah Goldberg talk about how they just don’t want to be a part of this whole thing if it means a non conservative like Trump wining and you have to laugh. Goldberg works for a publication that has spent the entire 21st Century telling everyone how the GOP establishment really does care about conservatives. And now he is just shocked no one will believe him when he claims Trump isn’t a conservative.

    The Trump supporters know Trump isn’t a conservative. What Peter and the rest of the media don’t get is that Trump’s supporters don’t give a shit if he is a conservative. They figure, and probably rightly, that every politician is lying and will not follow through with what they are saying. So, all they want is someone who at least is plain spoken and unafraid to go after the Democrats and the media. And Trump is certainly that.

    The establishment needs to get it through their thick skulls that no one they support is getting the nomination. I don’t know if it will be Trump, but if it is not him it will someone like Cruz or Carson whom the establishment hates just as much more. That is certain.

    1. Glad you’re back, John.

      1. Fuck. I am kind of upset.

        I was kind of enjoying being the “conservative” strawman for the likes of Hugh and Cytotoxic to fling shit at.

    2. Usually if the Republican establishment hates/fears something I assume that person must be doing *something* right.

      Of course, there may be exceptions. There may be a bad candidate who simply isn’t the establishment’s kind of bad, so by pure coincidence the establishment hates him/her.

      Maybe it’s the immigration thing. The establishments of both parties are pursuing immigration policies opposed by large numbers of voters, and the establishment responds by trying to rig the game so that immigration opponents are denied any influence.

      Now, maybe the establishment’s current immigration policy is just the very thing we need. I don’t know. It better be a good thing, because they seem bound and determined to impose that policy regardless of what actual voters want.

      Trump violates the consensus by criticizing the establishment’s immigration stance, and it seems that a lot of people believe he’s actually being serious. Maybe that accounts for some of the fear.

      I mean, I doubt the establishment would oppose a politician merely because he’s egomaniacal and non-conservative. Seriously, pull the other one!

      1. Trumps success is entirely rooted in his being the only candidate willing to state what is the majority of the voters Dem and R’s position on immigration. The elites of both parties have spent 50 years telling the country to fuck off they are going to accept hoards of third world coolie labor and if they don’t like it it is only because they are racists. Any candidate who was willing to stand up to that was going to get a lot of support. And no amount of “but he used to support single payer health care” whining is going to change that.

        1. The fact that most people aren’t for totally open borders doesn’t mean most people support Trump’s position on immigration. There is a massive middleground on this issue that you continually seem incapable of grasping.

          1. It’s no surprise that the stupidest, most easily led people are the ones who also thing hordes of third worlders are coming to ruin America.

            1. end the welfare state and I don’t give a shit about borders. But when i am paying for the massive influx of welfare enrollees, i would prefer to close the border…by force.

        2. Trump is ridiculous, but you’re right. He’s out front because he’s not patronizingly telling voters what they should want. He’s not pretending he’s their mommy or daddy. He’s pretending he’s their drinking buddy. And it’s working.

    3. The foercely tepid leadership of McConnell and Boehner, combined with the ruthless destruction of as many Tea Party candidates as they can fuck over has brought the Republicans securely to this point. They secured all that power so they could attempt fuck-all. Sometimes you don’t win in one go. Sometimes relentless trench fighting is how progress is made. GOPcrats are only willing to do that against each other for some reason. It just leaves me agog. I’m not sad I shed that team a decade ago.

      1. Cruz does not fit your description.

        He is the only Pol in my memory who went to Washington and did what he said he would do when running for office.

        people in Texas appreciate that quality in him.

    4. Hunh. You just made me hate Trump a little less. I think that makes me hate you just a little. 😉

      I do kind of like the idea of Trump as Court Jester to the Election Process, but holy fuckballs, not if it means getting either him, or Clinton, or Sanders as President. GAH!

      What the fuck has this country come to that these are our options?

    5. So, all they want is someone who at least is plain spoken and unafraid to go after the Democrats and the media. And Trump is certainly that.

      I don’t think I’d describe Trump as “plain spoken”, unless plain spoken now means “obnoxious blowhard douche.” Willing to go after the media and the dems, sure, I’ll grant you that, but plain spoken, not so much.

    6. You’re exactly right John.

  7. The article indicates that Trump has a Republican problem.

    1. A YUUUGE Republican problem.

      (Not to be confused with “a problem with huge Republicans,” which is what happens when Christie is around.)

  8. I still think that all the Trump support is just an epic trolling and we are all falling for it. Except me, of course. Just watch, he’ll get the nomination all sewn up and then just before the convention he’ll come out and say “ha ha, I was just fucking with you. Here’s a new season of the Apprentice, suckers.” And all the people who say they support him in polls are just hipsters who think it’s edgy and ironic.
    I’m probably wrong, but I’m sticking with it.

    1. I visited my parents this weekend and saw a large sign that read ” If your life matters … Donald Trump”. I’m guessing it was a pro-Trump sign, but for the life of me I have no idea what it meant.

      1. Sounds like a vague threat

        1. “Donald Trump 2016 … If you know what’s good for you.”

      2. Obviously if you don’t elect trump, you will definitely be raped and murdered by a Mexican.

    2. all the people who say they support him in polls are just hipsters who think it’s edgy and ironic.

      That and people who answer the phone and when they’re asked if they have a few minutes to participate in a public opinion poll about the Republican Primary actually say “yes” because apparently they don’t have anything better to do, like getting kicked repeatedly in the nuts by a ninja.

    3. Agreed. He sounds like the joke Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report.

  9. the various and sundry party strategists and influencers and money-givers who’ve made it their business to shape the GOP’s future?more than a little freaked out.

    I’m not sure why. Do they think that Trump represents an auto-lose against the Hillary/Sanders ticket? I mean, let’s pretend for a moment that they thought that Trump might not only win the GOP nom, but the presidency… would they be against Trump then?

    I basically agree with that assessment. It is hard to describe someone who has supported socialized medicine, eminent domain, and tax hikes as in any way conservative. He is not exactly a liberal, either. Instead, there is no ideological rigor or policy coherence to be found in his campaign. He is best described as an opportunist.

    Wait, are we talking about Trump here or Hillary?

    1. I mean, let’s pretend for a moment that they thought that Trump might not only win the GOP nom, but the presidency… would they be against Trump then?

      Yes. The entire point of winning an election for them is to steal. Trump winning would likely provide few opportunities to steal. So from their perspective there is no point in doing it.

      And even if there were opportunities to steal, working for a Trump administration would mean really important people at places like the New York Times wouldn’t like you. And no one is going to do that.

      They in no way view Trump winning the election as a good thing.

      1. Trump winning would likely provide few opportunities to steal.

        Why do you believe this? He’s a crony capitalist – it seems to me we should expect increasing cronyness under a Trump administration.

        1. I mean for the GOP establishment to steal. I am sure there will be stealing. There always is. But if Trump were President, the people doing the stealing wouldn’t be the GOP establishment.

          Sorry that wasn’t clear.

          1. Why should we care who the thieves are more than the volume to be stolen?

            1. I am not saying we should. I was just explaining why the GOP establishment would not see Trump wining as any kind of a good thing. The point of winning for them is to be able to steal and Trump winning would not allow that.

    2. A Trump nomination would signal a win for whoever the Dems put up against him. Sure, he’s polling high among (ostensible) primary voters, but his disfavorability is quite high, too. I think more people would sit out the election than would show up to vote for or against him, and Hillary or even Bernie would win by a landslide.

      1. In my pessimistic it-can’t-get-any-worse attitude, I’d love to see a runoff between Trump and Sanders.

        Crazytown vs. LooneyTunes.

      2. You realize that Hillary and The Donald’s names are perfectly interchangeable in your analysis.

        1. Democrats will hold their nose for their nominee. It’s what they do. Whether that’s Madame It’sherturn or Mr. Excitement the unapologetic socialists, they’ll turn out. And given an opponent in Trump, they won’t need historic turnout.

      3. I would like to write off Trump but I think he might win. Republican leaders may hate him but Republican voters would likely line up and vote for him in at least the same numbers they did for Romney. Meanwhile, Trump would have a real shot at getting black votes because of his immigration stance. And something like a third of Hispanics agree with him on immigration. So, the Democrats wouldn’t be getting 90% of the Hispanic vote like they do the black vote. More importantly, there are a whole lot of working class whites who didn’t care to come out and vote for Romney who would roll out for Trump.

        I am not saying this as an endorsement of Trump as a President. But you are foolish if you dismiss him as a candidate. He very well could win.

        1. I guess I’m not seeing it. The populist rhetoric about immigration plays well for certain people, even a sizeable group of people, but it’s not a coalition-building stance. Especially given his weak bonafides among traditional Republicans. And worse yet for the GOP after two years of tepid Congressional performance, I don’t see GOP voters turning out for a candidate “because Republican.”

          1. A solid majority of voters oppose immigration. And nearly all of them hate Washington. A populist clean the bums out message is an absolute winner. The fact that Trump isn’t rolling to the nomination and the Presidency with it is only because he is a bad candidate. The two parties have ceded the populist message to Trump and that makes him a real threat to win.

            1. The two parties have ceded the populist message to Trump and that makes him a real threat to win.

              Astute observation; I agree.

          2. But the thing is, you don’t always need a coalition. All you need is that “sizeable group” of “certain people”, & then for the other voters not to particularly hate you?to have them go “meh” & some vote for you, some against, just do avg. w them.

            Trump appeals to a sizable segment that’s politically homeless like libertarians: nationalists. They overlap somewhat w populists, but differ enough to constitute a tendency in their own right. In many other countries there’d be a nationalist party. In the USA, one of the reasons nationalists don’t get a lot of att’n is that our system of gov’t is so distributed that national issues don’t come up at many levels of gov’t where there are elected office holders, so there’s no great incentive to identify & latch onto the nationalist strain among voters over a politician’s career as they rise from dog catcher, but it’s there.

      4. This. The Tard Swarm is not enough to put Trump in power, and it’s really all he’s got.

        1. Why not? It put Obama in power. Twice.

    3. Well, for one, Trump is completely at odds with them for many reasons, so it makes sense they would be worried about him possibly winning the nomination regardless of what it means for their general election chances..

      While the general election polls don’t mean too much at the moment, Trump currently does poorly against Sanders, Biden, and Clinton in most polls, especially relative to the other GOP contenders. I don’t think he has enough appeal outside of his dedicated supporters to win a general election.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c….._race.html

      If he gets the nom, I wouldn’t be surprised to be some establishment GOPers jump ship, but I think the party begrudgingly gets in line for the most part.

      1. Well, for one, Trump is completely at odds with them for many reasons, so it makes sense they would be worried about him possibly winning the nomination regardless of what it means for their general election chances..

        And yet the GOP was 100% behind McCain in 2008. Or has everyone forgotten that? Sure, we made fun of Romney not being a real republican, but McCain? Jesus. The Media LIKED McCain before 2008. That tells you how much of a Republican McCain was.

        1. I don’t think McCain is comparable to Trump. He was a longtime politician and member of the bipartisan Washington establishment. The establishment GOP has not supported the hard right “real conservative” candidates. They get behind guys like Bush (all of them) and Romney.

          1. Yes, McCain and Trump are entirely different types of politicians. I was responding to your statement about how Trump “is at odds with them for many reasons”.

            McCain was at odds with core GOP voters and establishment as well. Yet they were able to get behind him in the 2008 election.

            1. The establishment might not have been behind McCain to the extent they were behind Romney in 2012, but he was in no way an anti-establishment pick the way Trump is.

          2. That made McCain worse than Trump, because McCain was in politics a long time & made a lot of enemies all around. Trump doesn’t have powerful political enemies. He does have an interest class against him that contains a lot of powerful politicians, but he hasn’t individually made enemies of any of them. His tendency has been to make friends w powerful politicians, because he’s needed them.

      2. Trump currently does poorly against Sanders, Biden, and Clinton in most polls, especially relative to the other GOP contenders.

        I agree that most current X vs Y polling shows Trump losing, even as other candidates like Carson or Fiorina do well. My question is, how accurate are those polls: for the 2008 and 2012 versions taken this early in the race, how well did early polls like McCain v Obama or Romney v Obama predict the final result in that state?

        It’s still insanely early to make predictions on who’s going to do what. For one, I still don’t think we have all of the entrants in the race yet. Has Biden actually said, “Yes, I’m running,” yet? I’m still waiting to see what if any roles Nikki Haley and Fauxcahontas or Julian Castro have in this election.

  10. Please note the MSNBC link in the article.

    Sudderman works for Vox which is owned by NBCUniversal

    1. Is he also in the pocket of CNN, CBS local news, National Review, and the Washington Post? Because all of those outlets got links, too…

      1. ….WHICH LEADS TO THE RAND CORPORATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAUCER PEOPLE, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE REVERSE VAMPIRES WHO CONTROL THE MEDIA

        1. Does that give them enough groups for a regular victory, or a special one?

    2. Clicking on an MSNBC link won’t give you AIDS…yet

      1. But it will give ad revenue to Sudderman’s employer.

        1. Somebody would have to actually click on the link, which seems… inconceivable.

    3. When the curtains start trying to steal your vital fluids, it’s time to take your meds, Josh.

    4. Ad hominem.

      1. It doesn’t even rise to the level of ad hominem. It’s just non sequitur.

        1. Josh’s train jumped the tracks a while ago. Now it’s just plowing through solid rock.

        2. You have to admit though, it’s all eerily similar to Bill Maher whining about his show being canceled by the Disney Corporation.

      2. “Ad hominem.”

        Nope

        Disclosure.

        Why you folks so distraught over financial links?

        1. Why you folks so distraught over financial links?

          Probably because it’s the same kind of horseshit the left uses to try and discredit anyone with any kind of link to the Koch brothers. Which is a kind of ad hominem.

          1. I do recall Matt and Nick exhaustively disclosing Reason’s links to Koch.

            Which was great….maybe you don’t think so.

            1. MAYBE HE’S ONE OF THEM TOO

              1. Consider poor Gilmore, forever straddling the line between hating the progressive tabloid blogosphere yet a stalwart curmudgeon against anyone else who might feel the same.

  11. I would say the elites are to blame for Trump in that the elites have been fucking over their base since I can remember.

    Reagan campaigned on eliminating the Department of Education. Once in office, he supported its expansion. One can find similar betrayals by every significant Republican politician in the subsequent years. Every election, Republicans politicians talk about reducing the tax burden on the economy and cutting spending. They never deliver ? Bush II’s tepid tax cuts aside.

    Why should the electorate vote prudently? Why should they carefully pick only sane candidates that support their positions? The establishment will fuck them over anyway! They might as well vote for the crazy guy; at least he scares the people they hate!

    1. I think that both Sanders’s and Trump’s support is indicative that the electorate is hungry for real hope and change. Not that shitty, gloss-leaflet marketed crap that Obama sold us 8 years ago, but something… anything different.

      It’s too bad Rand couldn’t capitalize on this in his campaign, because he seemed to be tapping into it occasionally with this Senate career.

      1. Given the way the GOP race is going, Paul being a politician (among other things) hurt him. Even Cruz, who has been even more defiant (vocally) of the establishment and doesn’t have the libertarian views Paul does that alienate conservatives, is polling single digits, though I think he has a good shot at winning if/when Trump and/or Carson falter.

        I don’t think that change desired is a substantive shift towards limited government. Heck, Trump’s change agenda is as fake or more fake than Obama’s. Most of the time the guy doesn’t say anything more substantive than “I’m gonna bring a ton of jobs back from Mexico and China and we’re gonna have a great economic boom and you’re gonna love it.”

        1. “I’m gonna bring a ton of jobs back from Mexico and China and we’re gonna have a great economic boom and you’re gonna love it.”

          But will it be yuge?

      2. Rand couldn’t capitalize on it because most conservative voters are not courageous.

        They fear terrorists if the national security state is in any way limited. They fear criminals if the cops are in any way handcuffed. They fear Chinese companies will dump steel and bankrupt our country. They think Obama is going to take their guns. They think they’ll be saddled with a U.S. variant of the NHS if the liberals get into power. They are terrified that their children are being tought to hate their country. They think climate change is crock because “hide the decline” was about dropping temperatures. They think schools are secretly encouraging their daughters to experiment with sex.

        Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

        What Rand Paul is offering only appeals to the courageous. Not the fearful. Now Trump… he’s packaging a product for the electorate’s tastes, and thus offering them protection against all their bogeymen. And since that validates their fearful state, the cowards eat it up.

        1. They fear terrorists if the national security state is in any way limited. They fear criminals if the cops are in any way handcuffed. They fear Chinese companies will dump steel and bankrupt our country. They think Obama is going to take their guns. They think they’ll be saddled with a U.S. variant of the NHS if the liberals get into power.

          Two out of five ain’t bad.

    2. All of that Tarran. And then people like Suderman wonder why self proclaimed “conservative” voters can support Trump. Suderman says “look, he won’t follow conservative principles if he is in office” like that means anything or makes Trump any worse than every other Republican politician in the last 20 years.

      1. Exactly. Sure, he’l fuck us, but He’ll put his people in, not 3rd string party apparatchiks whose main qualifications are their useless Ivy League degree and a talent for politco jock sniffing. That’s a great start.

      2. “Suderman says “look, he won’t follow conservative principles if he is in office” like that means anything or makes Trump any worse than every other Republican politician in the last 20 years.”

        Did you read the end of the article?

        1. The part where he says elites shouldn’t have pandered to the base but trained them to have more ‘reasonable’ expectations?

          As I said earlier – the pandering isn’t the problem; the fucking over is. Sure pandering is bad. But! the tea party’s original outrage was entirely legitimate – opposed to bailouts benefitting wall street at the expense of main street. Note how the Republican political establishment reacted to the tea party. They loved those votes; and enabled Obama’s spending anyway.

          The problem wasn’t pandering to the tea party. The problem was pandering then betraying them. Telling them to go fuck themselves the way McCain did, or actually supporting them the way Amash did was the only way they could earn voters’ respect. You’ll note that most republican legislators avoided both those options.

          1. The problem wasn’t pandering to the tea party. The problem was pandering then betraying them.

            I thought paying lip service while not taking a single action was the whole point of pandering. (See: Obama, Guantanamo)

          2. I don’t disagree, but Suderman said nothing about that distinction, he just pointed out the GOP’s hypocrisy.

            Also, I think you’re completely misidentifying the central issue Trump supporters feel betrayed on that is motivating them to support him. Trump didn’t shoot to the top of the polls by promising to cut spending and reign in government.

            1. I didn’t say he did shoot to the top by promising to cut spending.

              My ocnservative friends on facebook support Trump because:

              at least he scares the people they hate!

              1. I see, I got that impression because spending and the Tea Party was the go-to example you went for in terms of the GOP betraying their base. I’m saying that Trump is showing that they care more about GOP “betrayal” on the issue of immigration (and to an extent other things like trade, etc.) than spending and limited government.

        2. Yes. And I read

          Elites themselves bear some responsibility here. What happened to the GOP happened long before Trump’s campaign, in part because its elected leaders in Congress and elsewhere allowed and even encouraged it, harnessing the base’s untempered enthusiasms to their own purposes over the years. It is more than a little bit ironic that the party’s establishment is now attacking Trump for doing roughly the same thing.

          Trump isn’t the cause of the Republican party’s troubles so much as their avatar and spokesperson. And the Republican party’s Trump problem isn’t Trump so much as it is the Republican party itself.

          as Sudderman saying the GOP’s problem is that it didn’t fuck its supporters enough. They “harnessed the untempered enthusiasm” instead of tamping it down and making it clear they were going to be fucked and were entitled to no voice in politics. Suderman has a more contemptuous and condescending view of GOP voters than he does of the party.

          1. He’s criticizing them for the exact same thing you’ve been criticizing them for. Using the base with little to no intention of actually following through on those promises.

            1. I see what you are saying but I don’t think Suderman means that. He could mean that but if he does, he is saying it in a backward ass way. The point is the GOP constantly has lied and betrayed its base and now the base doesn’t give a shit what the GOP has to say about Trump. instead of just saying that, Suderman says “they harnessed their untempered enthusiasm”. What the fuck does that even mean? My God that is a poor sentence and poorly written paragraph. I read that phrase to mean that the GOP is just as bad as Trump because both of them are willing to play to desires of the base that Suderman doesn’t like. His point seems to be “you guys made a living riling these morons up how can you now complain when someone else does it?” not “you betrayed your supporters and now they have turned to someone you don’t like and that is your fault not theirs”.

              1. Well Suderman is a journalist, so it’s no surprise he uses unnecessarily flowery language at times.

                “His point seems to be “you guys made a living riling these morons up how can you now complain when someone else does it?” not “you betrayed your supporters and now they have turned to someone you don’t like and that is your fault not theirs”.”

                It might be, but so what? Even assuming he’s insinuating that Trump supporters are morons, so what? Would you care if an article here insinuated that about Bernie or Obama supporters (for example)? If not, why are Trump supporters off-limits?

                1. I don’t think all of any of those people are morons. Some are. In the case of both Sanders and Trump, a lot of their supporters are anything but morons. They are people who feel legitimately betreyed by the political system and feel like for all of their faults, Sanders and Trump are the only politicians willing to represent their interests.

                  In the same way Trump’s support is a product of the GOP selling out its supporters on immigration, Sanders’ support is a product of the Democrats completely selling out their supporters on the rule of law and corporatism. I don’t think most of Sanders’ supporters are socialists. I think they are Democrats who are legitimately outraged that Obama and the Democratic Party let Wall Street off for the 2008 meltdown and after 7 years of the Obama Presidency, the rules apply even less to the big corporations and banks than they did under Bush. And Sanders is the only one willing to say that. And don’t forget, Sanders is also the only Democratic candidate willing to come out against immigration.

                  Both candidates are being embraced because they are the only ones willing to represent a large group of voters’ concerns.

                  1. I don’t disagree with that, but I have never seen you jump to the defense of the supporters of a Democratic politician the way you did for Trump supporters here, particularly over something that isn’t explicitly or arguably implicitly stated in the article.

                    1. Well, I just did. So if nothing else there is a first time for everything.

                      It isn’t the first time. I have said on many occasions people are foolish to write of Obama voters as morons. Most people don’t pay that much attention and the media did a great job of portraying Obama as a centrist and pragmatist. People voted for him because they thought he was a centrist and would bring the country together not because they were longing for giant progressive government. He is of course the exact opposite of that. But people didn’t realize that because the media did such a great job of lying and the GOP was so timid and afraid to tell the truth.

    3. ^ I came here to say this, as the kids say.

      Trump isn’t leading because he’s the natural evolution of the Republican’s pandering to their basest whims or whatever Suderman’s saying. He’s leading because movement conservatism died with Goldwater, and we’ve had thirty years of government expansion no matter how much lip-service any R’s in office paid to small government. For quite some time now “conservativism” hasn’t meant limited government, it’s meant status quo and capitulation while the Progressives run amok. Trump represents the strongest reaction to mealy-mouthed professional politicians like John Boehner any voter can imagine, and the more the GOP establishment attacks him the more support he’ll win.

  12. So the GOP establishment that created the conditions for a person like Trump to become popular and now they don’t like it? Huh. Who’da thunk?

    1. Yeah, I’m crying over their self created problem

  13. Donald: Eres un Pendejo !!!

    I honestly believe Donald Trump is working for Hillary Clinton.

    Donald has exposed the republican party and its constituents throughout the USA for what they really are: a bunch of Dumb Callous Bigots. A bunch of religious goof-balls.

    The Democratic Debate the other night was so much more civilized and far more intellectual.

    Donald Trump and company sound like the WWF.

    1. As opposed to the Democratic frontrunners: a felon, a socialist, and a serial groper…

    2. 2/5

    3. How does 70% of the GOP picking someone other than Trump equate to Trump exposing the GOP for “what they really are?” Is it equivalent to Sanders’ supporters exposing the Dems to what they really are, national socialists?

      1. Trump’s support does seem to be growing among Republicans, and if he wins the nomination, he will likely get the votes of many Republicans who opposed him during the primary. How it will affect turnout is another matter, though.

        However, your counterpoint is equally valid. If we’re going to play the “expose them for what they really are” game, one could have a field day with Democrats past and present.

        But people like Alice Bowie are so far up their own asses that they wouldn’t care. Socialist would be a compliment to them. Nationalist might make some of them blush, but one need only look at what happened to the “anti-war movement” after Obama took office to see how sincere many of them really are.

        1. Also, isn’t Alice the same person as “Itchy Puss” (who coined the lovely term “nigger pay”)? Calling him a “national socialist” would hardly be an insult (to him).

    4. The Democratic Debate the other night was so much more civilized and far more intellectual.

      Stupid talking points are stupid. Civilized and intellectual, aka words whose meanings you don’t begin to understand, but give you the warm fuzzies inside so naturally they apply here.

    5. The Democratic debate was also obviously rigged to make Hillary Clinton look good, with a bunch of puppet candidates playing softball.

      Bernie Sanders telling Hillary that “The American People are sick and tired of hearing about your emails” was a dead giveaway. It was totally a setup so that Bernie could say that and hopefully convince the Democrats nodding along that it’s safe to treat the issue as a non-issue.

  14. Who is the Republican “establishment?” And, more importantly, should the quotation mark be inside the end quote in my previous question?

    1. Question mark should be outside of the quotation marks because the quoted text is not a question. Some people say the quotation mark always goes last, but those people are assholes who care more about typography than linguistic precision.

      1. Thanks. Makes sense and looks better too.

        1. It’s also the programmatically correct thing to do. Put the quotes around what you’re quoting. Apply operators as needed.

  15. “what does it signal that so much much of the Republican party’s voter base has so enthusiastically supported a non-conservative for this long”

    I dispute that this is actually what polls have shown.

    Or at least… that the “base” may be willing to send approval in Trump’s direction, but that actual primary voters are not going to turn out for him. Because the wide-market polling doesn’t capture what the narrow slice of state-by-state primary voters intents are until pretty much the *very last minute*

    eg.

    Clinton had a 20point lead over Obama in 2008 up until December, if i recall – and then he iced her in the primary and suddenly polls swung to favor the ‘most recent winner’.

    If anything has kept Trump afloat during the last few months its the fact that there are just *too damn many GOP candidates, and none of them is doing fuck-all to distinguish themselves, presumably because the money is spread so thin.

    That said, i agree with Pete’s point that Trump is a product of GOP historical populist rhetoric coming home to roost.

    1. I think you are right about that. If he got the nomination, I think Trump might win the election but I don’t think he will get the nomination. I think either Carson, Fiorina or Cruz will get the nomination. Maybe Rubio but I doubt he is enough of an outsider.

      1. I think if carson would gargle a little testosterone every morning and try to sound more Stentorian… and maybe STFU about his kooky religious ideas…. he and Fiorina would be cruising (pun sort of accidental) to a showdown.

        Not necessarily just because they have the identity politics angles sewed up… but because they’re firstly a) both non-establishment outsiders, b) less obviously retarded than average politicians, and c) just feel like competent, “safe” people that have the “new car smell” than ()@#*$ jeb bush and the rest of the rehashed republicans don’t.

        1. It’s funny how Fiorina (aside from Rand) is, in many ways, one of the most electable candidates on both sides of the aisle. Biden running a close second or third.

          Imagine if this were 1980, and Fiorina was running. She’d get serious coverage.

          1. No, I suspect that as in most elections for POTUS, she’d be one of the hundreds you never hear of. I bet there were some very much like her in both major parties running. You never know what confluence of att’n will break someone out of the crowd to turn serious att’n to them; it’s never odds-on, always against.

        2. Yeah. And I think Carson still has time to get his act together. Voting for Carson is a tipple bonus point jackpot of fuck yous for a Republican voter. Not only is he an outsider that the GOP establishment hates and a social conservative, voting for him is voting for a black man and telling the entire media and Democratic party to go fuck themselves with their claims everyone who disagreed with Obama was just racist. If he just tones it down and looks like a safe. patriotic citizen who wants to clean up Washington and just happens to also be a brain surgeon, he has a real chance.

          1. I agree. Funny how Trump’s been getting all the att’n from both supporters & critics in the media, but so little on Carson, when he’s Trump’s most serious competition in the polls now & has been for weeks.

        3. Neither Carson nor Fiorina would do well against Hillary Clinton.

          Fiorina has less experience, and ran HP into the ground, and Clinton will hammer her on that. In a woman-vs-woman fight, the more experienced woman is going to be taken more seriously. People aren’t going to go for female-and-no-political experience, especially if their business experience is less than stellar.

          Carson same problem. Plus I don’t think people are going to go for two black presidents in a row.

          1. No, actually I think people would be eager to vote for a black who isn’t Obama, just to prove the country’s not bigoted & for Republicans to show, “See? We can elect them too!” Once you go black, you can never go back.

      2. Bet your money on Cruz.

  16. Another shitty article, Suderman. You and Welsh must be sharing a stall during your morning dumps. Go back to the healthcare coverage.

    You have said essentially nothing. You acknowledge you have been wrong about Trump and then offer us more of your wisdom without seeing the obvious – your bubble precludes you from making believable commentary. Then you pronounce “he is best described as an opportunist”. Wow. So first I assume that is intended as denigration of Trump. Then I wonder if you understand that EVERY person in and around politics (including the commentariat of journalists) are freaking opportunists. So why single out Trump?

    Maybe he’ll be a crap president, maybe he won’t win, maybe he will be a good problem solver and in the end you’ll be writing another commentary on how he wasn’t really as bad as you thought.

    But, now the tea water is boiling and I have to do something useful.
    Shift your focus, dude. Maybe raise a kid full-time. You would be good at it.

    1. “why single out Trump?”

      Because he’s a moron and a scumbag and should never be elected to @($*% anything?

      I thought that was clear.

      1. But how exactly is that any different than nearly every politician currently running?

        1. Marginally?

        2. Trump is to Obama what Obama was to Bush. He’s a protest candidate whose biggest credential is not being the other guy, running on hot air. And they’ll double down on their predecessor’s policies (with a different flavor) because they don’t actually care.

          A Republican president would have a much easier time getting single-payer passed. I’d like the candidate not to be someone who would do that.

      2. Because he’s a moron and a scumbag and should never be elected to @($*% anything?

        And that begs the question, why single out Trump?

        1. He was talking about trump. If he were talking about Christie i’d have said the same.

          1. I was making a joke.

      3. You and Welsh

        My favorite part of these one off trolls is their consistent misspelling of Welch’s name.

        1. Well, he looks Welsh.

        2. Well, Mary, I probably misspelled his name because I care so little about the way it’s spelled. But that’s a great counter-point to my criticism of Suderman’s ad hominem bashing of Trump.

          1. Point us to where Suderman used ad-hominem, please. Quotes.

            1. You got a mouse in your pocket? And – No.

      4. Because he’s a moron and a scumbag and should never be elected to @($*% anything?

        So why single out Trump?

        1. Is there an echo in here?

    2. Suderman has written at least as many articles on Clinton as on Trump. I don’t think you know what “singling out” means.

      1. There’s a certain kind of intellectual masochism with the people who passively “support Trump” because the *right people don’t like him*

        They know there’s absolutely nothing good about the guy other than the fact he makes THEM ELITISTS MAD HOW YOU LIKE THAT ELITISTS THIS IS WHUT YOU GET FOR LETTING THE MEXICANS IN NOW SUCK IT

        1. Yeah, I get the whole “sticking it to the man” thing. But Trump is also “the man” in his own way. People seem to be projecting their hopes and dreams onto him, which is eerily reminiscent of Obama’s appeal. He’s a fucking politician. Suderman and the Reason writers do seem a little clueless at times, but politicians need to be scrutinized and criticized.

          1. Hey, you’re absolutely right that politicians need to be scrutinized and criticized. But few of the anti-trump tirades here – whether in the articles or the commentariat – are very edifying scrutiny or criticism. I’d love to hear a reasoned argument why Trump is a moron and scumbag, that electing him is impossible and means the end of rational politics in this country. But I kind feel like this place is a Chinese restaurant of critical analysis on the subject – you know, after and hour . . .
            But I like the people here, they’re funny and many are very rational. I also like seeing Veronique’s name sometimes . . . de Rugy . . . Did I spell it right Mary?

            1. Did I spell it right Mary?

              ???

              1. I don’t think it understands the reference its making.

              2. A snarky reference to “RBS” above.

                1. A snarky reference to “RBS” above.

                  Hmm, you may not know this, but Mary is the name of a long-time troll who has caused legal trouble for the Reason Foundation and has demonstrated a disturbing level of personal obsession with many of the commenters here.

                  Throwing that name around carries some baggage.

            2. Setting aside whatever the hell trip you’re on about “Mary”, Suderman writes milquetoast criticism. That’s his schtick. You can read him doing the same things about Hillary Clinton or Obamacare. Maybe he has some bias and maybe you and Corning will tease it out of him. But he’s not on a “tirade” and your standard of “edification” lacks substance. Either Trump means what he says–in which case there are many avenues of criticism about what he’s advocating from a libertarian standpoint–or he isn’t, and thus exploring why and how he’s a political opportunist seems quite appropriate. As I pointed out a couple comments upthread, there’s nothing particularly unique about this criticism vis-a-vis Trump. Suderman has written quite a bit of criticism about Clinton, as well.

              1. Well we can agree that it’s milquetoast. Otherwise the pizza is done and the kid is demanding to be fed. I’m sure we’ll all be back.
                (The “mary” reference was mocking the nature of RBS’ response. Really? I didn’t spell the guy’s name right so my invective is invalid? Pretty entertaining.)
                Peace! kbolino.

        2. I think it’s more than just “sticking it to the man” or “this is for letting the mexicans in”. The “Conservative” part of the Republican party has been shafted for…what…100 years?

          I think they’re tired of being demonized and ignored and so they’re playing “Kingmaker”. (I can’t win but I’ll be damned if I let **THAT GUY** win. So they pick whoever **THAT GUY** hates most.

          1. The republican party has only been conservative for 90-ish years.

            It fucking ran Theodore Roosevelt. In some ways the party is going back to its roots with Trump.

            1. “Conservative” can mean many things. The GOP hasn’t been conservative in its current sense (religiously-influenced trad, internationally bellicose, deficit hawks at state & federal level) for more than ~40 yrs., let alone 90.

              1. I would argue that “deficit hawks” is not a conservative concept at all (NeoCons are jaded Socialists). The GOP is not Conservative. There has been a Conservative wing of the GOP since Civil War times (and one in the Dems until very recently). It’s power comes and goes.

                The “religiously influenced trad” part was taken for granted in both parties prior to WW2. It’s not a “traditional” part of Conservatism, but it can’t be ignored now. Prior to modern times, the religious folk didn’t have that much to be very reactionary to.

        3. Totally. I find myself sympathizing with Trump for the single reason that I can’t stand the people he antagonizes. The media in this country left and right are utterly loathsome and I am absolutely fed up with PC standards dictating what can be said and can’t and what arguments and positions can be taken seriously in the public square. Trump’s success is an enormous blow to the powers of the self appointed gate keepers of political discourse. They hate him for it and I can’t help but see how is success is all bad because of it.

          1. Kivlor: I think they’re tired of being demonized and ignored and so they’re playing “Kingmaker”. (I can’t win but I’ll be damned if I let **THAT GUY** win. So they pick whoever **THAT GUY** hates most.

            John: I find myself sympathizing with Trump for the single reason that I can’t stand the people he antagonizes… Trump’s success is an enormous blow to the powers of the self appointed gate keepers of political discourse.

            AKA sticking it to the man

          2. Kbolino: There’s a nuanced difference. People who hate “The Man” hate positions of power. They’ll replace “The Man” and hate the new one just as much as the old.

            Most conservatives don’t hate positions of power, they hate the specific people currently in power today–with specific grievances. That’s why I would liken this to them playing “Kingmaker”. They have lost repeatedly and know they can’t win, but they can still try to get even with their enemies.

            I think most Conservatives know Trump will be bad. They’re willing to pay the price for their vengeance.

            And that should frighten people.

            1. Kbolino: There’s a nuanced difference. People who hate “The Man” hate positions of power. They’ll replace “The Man” and hate the new one just as much as the old.

              That seems a bit idiosyncratic to me, but whatever. The point is that the goal is to fuck with people in power; whether it’s because they’re in power, they’re people you don’t like, or both, seems somewhat ancillary to me.

              1. whether it’s because they’re in power, they’re people you don’t like, or both, seems somewhat ancillary to me

                Hmm, I feel like this point requires more thought. I see where you’re coming from, but at the same time, what is the endgame with Trump? Yes, he says the wrong things to the right people. And I enjoy many of their salty ham tears, too. I doubt he’d be worse than Obama, to be sure, but is that really the standard we want to apply going forward?

                Then again, I guess Trump has to be considered in the context of Bernie Sanders being a similarly viable contender for the Democratic nomination.

            2. “doubt he’d be worse than Obama, to be sure, but is that really the standard we want to apply going forward?” I seriously think he’ll be a tyrant, and I think it is not only a terrible idea to support him but that the standard of “at least he’s not Obama” is a horrid concept to advance.

              That said, I understand why people support him. I can’t blame them for it. They have legitimate grievances, and are treated as monsters for expressing them; we make caricatures of their point of view, and attack the caricature as if it was the real thing.

              Conservatives were kicked around and bullied a very long time, and told to just swallow it–that they deserve it. Now they’ve found a bully who will pick on their enemies. Sure, the new bully will probably pick on them later; sure he’ll take their lunch money; but at least the previous bully is going to get his (they hope). People are petty, spiteful creatures. This was the natural course, and I’m surprised it took this long.

          3. ” Trump’s success is an enormous blow to the powers of the self appointed gate keepers of political discourse. ”

            Oddly it seems to legitimize them. Clearly the rubes really don’t deserve power.

  17. Just an aside: I think it’s important to note that we have self-identified progressives and Democrats right here on these boards who’ve come straight out and said that Bernie’s campaign is just a show card and in the end, the Democrats will line up behind Hillary right on cue. This isn’t the ravings of some H&R conspiracy theorist *looks around nervously* this is coming from the mouths of Dems themselves.

    1. I think that’s right.

      The Bernie idealism on the internet is just for feels.

      That said… i do think it bodes poorly for her in the general, because tho she’ll cruise to a nomination, she’s really not going to inspire the marginal people she needs to win

      1. Obama won in 2012 for the single reason that he got more Democrats to bother to show up than Romeny could get Republicans to do the same. The entire election was based on turnout. 2016 is going to have to be the same for the Democrats to have any chance. It won’t be a 2008 the nation turns its eyes to the Democrats to save them election.

        I don’t see any way in hell Hillary motivates Democrats to show up like Obama did. She is not black, a good number of the Prog base hate her guts. Outside of a few middle aged women, I don’t know a single Democrat who is enthusiastic about her or anything but moderately embarrassed to have to support her. That doesn’t mean they will vote Republican. But it certainly means a good number of them won’t bother to show up and that will doom Hillary.

        1. yep.

          not to mention the basic statistical disadvantage she faces; with Obama’s support trending down, the middle-east narrative looking shittier by the day, and with the market & economy seeming to be sliding sideways instead of over-the-hump…. the likelihood for a “Change of party” is above 50% already and growing

        2. Holy shit, John is back?

        3. That’s why she’s not going to get the nomination. At this point the Democrats are most interested in a candidate who won’t necessarily win, but won’t be an embarrassment, so they’ve been looking for a chance to dump her at the earliest opp’ty. Biden’s jumping in will be that opp’ty & he knows it. Not that Biden isn’t embarrassing too, but not in the same way Hillary is.

    2. I agree. It was pretty obvious from the way Bernie threw the debate to Clinton with his whole “The American people are tired of your emails” jedi mind trick bullshit. If he was seriously running, he would not hesitate to go after Clinton on her email server. He pretty much only exists to make it look like Clinton has some opposition and give the Democrats a bit of a show.

  18. Instead, there is no ideological rigor or policy coherence to be found in his campaign.

    I disagree. As far as I can tell, Trump is running quite successfully on a producerist platform

  19. I find it odd that a libertarian media outlet should give a damn about what another political party is doing and who they may or may not be nominating. Why, you should be *thrilled* that this “moron” is steamrolling his way to the nomination, because that would make it so much easier for the Libertarian candidate to win the general election. To that end, shouldn’t you be busy telling us all how wonderful the Libertarian candidate is? Oh, wait, there isn’t one. Y’all basically pull a Gus Hall and run the same dipstick every four years.

    Tearing down someone else’s house is sure easier than building your own, I guess.

    1. Reason is a libertarian site, not a Libertarian one.

    2. Derp derp derp. Libertarian Party =/= all libertarians

    3. Wait, do we throw elections to the wrong party, or are we politically irrelevant?

      I can never keep this straight…

  20. Trump is where he is because a lot of retards would 1) rather hate on teh foreignerz than get real about America’s economic problems and 2) would rather feel the instant gratification of ‘pissing of those people’.

    These people are borderline subhuman and not so borderline retarded. They should not be allowed to vote.

    1. Spoken by someone who’s never actually lived or raised children in an exponentially enriched environment.

  21. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her
    Now i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out

    ————– HomeJobs90.Com

  22. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her
    Now i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out

    ————– http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  23. Can we stop fucking pretending that trump is here based in any way on his positions. He isn’t here because he represents a “reactionary, anti-immigration” side of the gop. Hes here because he represents a “the establishment doesn’t listen to a goddamn word we say/reactionary” side of the gop. I think the fact that the gop plans to try and destroy the main candidate that their base is wanting, is part of the reason people support him all the more. They don’t care what his positions are, as long as the establishment gets the middle finger

  24. I seriously want to leave this country more and more each day. Maybe go set up in some southeast Asian or Central American Country. Sure, it will be just as shitty, probably worse, but at least I wont know what’s going on. Ignorance may indeed be bliss.

    1. Panama might actually really be an improvement. Can’t wait for ZEDE in Honduras.

      1. The news on that front is dead quiet. Not sure if they’re still going to happen.

  25. One of my proggy friends is convinces Trump is being used as a Pawn by the Republican Establishment…..

    /facepalm

  26. One of my proggy friends is convinces Trump is being used as a Pawn by the Republican Establishment…..

    /facepalm

    1. a proggy, by definition, is a friggin’ moron so what’s the point?

  27. Perhaps if the GOP had done something about the fundietard problem 30 years ago it wouldn’t be in this mess. You know, the bible-thumping rejects from the “silent majority” that came knocking and decided to crap all over everything? Those people that turned the GOP into a joke filled with pompous, holier-than-thou jackasses? The very ones that so carefully turned the GOP into an extension of your local megachurch?

    I call this the law of unintended consequences – after the likes of Huckabee and Santorum took what little remaining self respect the GOP had out back and shot in the head, all you are left with is the likes of Trump.

    1. I call this the law of unintended consequences – after the likes of Farrakhan and Sharpton took what little remaining self respect the Democrats had out back and shot in the head, all you are left with is the likes of Sanders.

      This makes about as much sense, and is about as accurate, as what you said.

  28. The Republicans are their OWN worst enemies!!! If they had AN OUNCE of SENSE they would unite BEHIND the front runner and WIN a dam election for a change!! Donald Trump has a PROVEN success record in every kind of business known to man, he has more negotiation skills than any candidate on either side, he also will not be bought by special interest and KNOWS what needs to change and WILL see those changes through… Trump is not a Junior senator, a career politician or someone who will go along to get along!! WE needs Mr. Trump in the WH.. he will be a President for ALL people not just a select few…we NEED a U NITER and he has all ready united many in this country behind him. One thing IS for sure…. the American PEOPLE will NOT allow the politicians to choose our President again!!!

    1. One thing IS for sure…. the American PEOPLE will NOT allow the politicians to choose our President again!!!

      3/10 folksy but ultimately meaningless

    2. Holy shit, he really is Obama 2.0

  29. There is no conservative in the R-Party field. Trump is the closest they’ve got. The “elite” (sic) aren’t conservative.

    1. Is Cruz a Libertarian ?

  30. You mean the leadership of a major party are troubled with a candidate that actually has demonstrated to have a following with voters? What can they do about this? Magically nominate Romney in his place, perhaps?

    1. It’s cute how you phrase things. Yes it is troublesome that a fascist retard loudmouth has a following.

      1. Why do you care so much ?

        Shouldn’t you be worrying about Canada’s recent election ?

        something something worrying about the spec in your brother’s eye while ignoring the log in your own…. something something something.

        1. Yeah, so Canada elected another Trudeau. Which pretty much means it’s going to stick with Canada’s center-left policies over the last 70 years. I don’t see this as a leftward shift as much as a return to canadian politics as usual.

          1. “Return” implies a departure that never happened, excepting a very few policy changes. In some ways there will be improvement, such as with MJ and immigration and criminal justice in general. In some ways it will be worse ex guns and long form census.

          2. LP candidate in my riding finished 5th out of 6. At least we beat the Marxist-Leninists

  31. The Rino establishment types should heed the adage: when it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it!

  32. Peter Suderman: Do you know what a “redundancy” is? That’s exactly what “various and sundry” is; It’s either one or the other, not both. Please put that away into your memory banks and make use of it from now on. Thanks.

  33. The DNC believes that Americans need to be drinking white wine so that is all they offer.

    The GOP will only offer some brand of scotch in reaction to that.

    Some Americans like white wine and some will drink scotch but most Americans just want a beer – so not too many head out to vote when all they can get is white wine or scotch.

    In response to this Trump is offering IPA because he heard it is popular.

    All the GOP has to do is offer Bud Lite and they will have the election sewn up but they just cannot help themselves.

  34. I don’t care which scam artist finally gets elected, or which doesn’t, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr “investment advisor with a claimed “near perfect prediction record” [insert advisor name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .

    Why? Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

    Savings plan results 1972-2011: http://onebornfreesfinancialsa…..gspot.com/

    Regards,onebornfree
    Financial Safety Services

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.