Donald Trump

New Poll Finds That GOP Voters are Out of Their Minds

|

Gage skidmore

Is Donald Trump electable? A sizable majority of Republicans seem to think the answer is yes.

A new poll suggests that more Republican-leaning voters believe he is capable of winning a general election next year than any other candidate. About 70 percent of Republicans say he's a potential victor in November 2016, more than any other GOP candidate. Trailing Trump are neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, both of whom are ranked as plausible winners next year by about 60 percent of GOP voters.

The idea that Trump and Carson are good bets in a general election is, as the Associated Press notes, not exactly conventional wisdom amongst the party's professional class. In fact, the opposite is true. Trump and Carson are considered the least electable candidates in the GOP field.

It's yet another sign that GOP voters are warming to trump. As recently as June, just 20 percent of Republican voters viewed Trump favorably, a figure that more recently has grown past 50 percent.

As is increasingly the case with news related to Trump, this reveals at least as much about the state of the Republican party as it does about Trump himself.

The most obvious takeaway here is that there is a massive split between people who describe themselves as GOP voters and the Republican professional class.

On the one hand, the party's voting base seems to increasingly think that Trump, who is basically running for president on a combination of sneering nativism and a Twitter-based Triumph the Insult Comic Dog impression, is the sort of candidate who could rally a majority of the country behind him in a general election campaign.

On the other hand are people who are paid to find ways to put Republican politicians into office, who analyze polls, craft messaging, raise and run campaigns for a living. These people, who are, to be sure, sometimes wrong but generally make it their business to be experts on national politics, think there's no possible way that someone as polarizing, as inexperienced, and widely disliked outside of Republican circles could actually win a general election.

Which is another way of saying that they believe that the Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers, although they rarely say so in such terms. The gap between party elites and its base, and the various frictions it causes, is one of the most defining features of the Republican party today.

Which brings me to my second point: The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.

It is extremely difficult to imagine Donald Trump winning a presidential election against a Democratic candidate of any competence. And while Hillary Clinton, who is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee, has many flaws, a lack of basic political competence and capabilities is not one of them. Indeed, Clinton is almost perfectly positioned to exploit Trump's large and obvious weaknesses in a general election, with women, with Hispanics, with the portion of the electorate that has not gone all in for Trump-mania, and is not willing to put up with it in any form. The 70 percent of Republicans who say that Trump could win the presidency next year seem to have mistaken their own preferences for the preferences of the public at large. The two are not the same.

And that brings me to my final point, which is that Trump's success reveals not only the gaps between the GOP base and the party elite, but between the GOP base and the rest of the country. For his fans in the GOP base, Trump an outsider-savior who might be able to cut through the awfulness of national politics and make drastic changes. For others, he comes across as an inexperienced reality show buffoon. Yes, a party's base often views its candidates differently than the nation at large, but the disagreement over Trump seems pointedly different to me: It is not the same as the disagreements over candidates like Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Bob Dole. While many people were deeply hostile to all of those candidates, most people recognized that each had a degree of legitimate political experience and were, in a broad sense, essentially qualified to be president. The same cannot be said with Donald Trump

Trump still may not win the GOP nomination, but his sustained success this election (and, to a lesser extent, the related success his Trump's current Iowa nemesis, neurosurgeon Ben Carson) reflects all too clearly on the state of the contemporary GOP. It is not very concerned with conservatism or with policy at all, save for vague anti-immigration fantasies; it is attracted to bullying, often intentionally offensive rhetoric and politicians who promise what is obviously impossible; and it is not only frustrated with the political process but almost entirely detached from it, to the point where the party base is alienated even from its own professional class. At this point, Trump is best viewed as a sort of human encapsulation of the Republican party's problems, an encapsulation of its ailments and neuroses—the avatar of its increasingly dominant id.  

NEXT: Baltimore Police Start Wearing Body Cameras (UPDATE: City Releases Camera Policy)

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. Suderman, with the Salon headline, at reason.com.

    You’re killing me, Suderman.

    1. Yeah, becuz libertarians are just radical Republkinz, right?

      1. STOP PICKING ON REASON!

        1. AND DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!!

          /unrelated

          1. She’s still in the sky, with diamonds.

        2. What I found interesting was Suderman’s comment that many Republican voters are attracted to “politicians who promise what is obviously impossible”. This used to be the sole domain of Democratic candidates, especially candidates like Bernie Sanders who promise free college and 90% income tax rates. The real issue is: can the Republican nominee do a better job of pointing out impossible promises of Democrats than Democrats can of Republicans’?

          1. Dems usually say Republicans can and will do what the Dems say Republicans will do, like outlaw fellatio.

        3. STOP PICKLING ON REASON

    2. Oh no! Don’t talk bad about Republicans!

    3. Suderman, with the candlestick, in the conservatory.

    4. What this cute little post reveals is that too many at Reason are still missing the point. Trump has convinced the GOP voter with one thing that one would think Reason writers would respect: actual success. All establishment politicians and pundits said he could not survive the comments he made at the start of the race. Not only did he survive them, he essentially pulled the pants down, underwear and all, of the media’s perceived ability to destroy anyone that does not abide PC speech – to everyone’s benefit. Voters, including many Democrats, are totally fed up with the constant excuses of what is “realistic” as a reason for failure to make any progress, and Trump has proved that conventional wisdom is wrong at least at some level. And as for immigration, they are tired of being told that not wanting anymore ILLEGAL immigration is the same as being anti-immigrant, and that there is nothing we can do but surrender our borders. I won’t vote for Trump, but I understand that the GOP voter is favoring Trump not so much because they favor all he says, but rather as a raised middle finger at Suderman and everyone else who continues to tell them that what they believe does not matter, and that they are, as he says anti-immigrant and “bonkers”.

      1. Check back to the 2008 reason endorsements. (archived.). Maybe Mr. Suderman was an Obama voter.

  2. I have a new theory. Trump wants to build a casino on federal land but get it done in the current environment. Clinton offered to make it happen for him if he just runs in the primary, knowing there’s no fucking way he can win a general election. Some deal has been struck to get the dumbest primary voters in history to put him up there to lose the White House for the GOP.

    Carson is simply an anomaly, a la Herman Cain.

    1. So brothers are now an “anomaly” on the body politic, a “tumor” to be “removed”, excess, unneeded tissue to be cut off at the first opportunity, so as to not harm the host.

      Wow. just..FUCKING…. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST MUCH??!!!11one!11

      1. No, I don’t think that is what he meant at all. He meant the “brothers” will NEVER have any place of power in the Republican party not on the body politic. The Repugnicans are the same people who keep defending the cop killers and calling every black who is shot a “thug”. So a black man running for President on the Republican side will never be accepted by a majority of GOP. Not even Colin Powell who probably had the best chance of respectability until he became Cheney’s gofer.

    2. What’s that say about the other bozos that are running. They aren’t worth the toilet paper one wipes his ass with. But, let’s all continue to vote them in hoping for a different result. Just fall in line like good little sheeple.

      1. Right, everyone who doesn’t TRUMP is sheeple. Maybe they’re just too smart to fall in line with retards like you.

    3. Actually a friend of Obama appointee Ken Salaxar just bought all the wild horses on federal land and sold them to a Mexican dog food factory.

  3. The only thing it means is that they care most about one single issue: telling Washington, D.C. to fuck off.
    I fail to see how that is worse than what Bernie or Hillary supporters care about.

    1. The only thing it means is that they care most about one single issue: telling Washington, D.C. to fuck off.

      In my experience, Trump voters seem to be consumed by a fear and loathing of those damn dirty furriners stealing our jerbs and raping our women.

      1. and ANKUR BAYBEEZSSSoneoneoneone!!11

        1. You left out an ELEVENTY!!11!!1

      2. That’s the opinion of the intellectually lazy.

    2. It’s not anything good because there aren’t any policy proposals or serious ideas to actually make DC fuck off. It’s the same as it always is. Thinking Trump is good or measurably better is probably wrong.

    3. Republicans told people to write letters, call their senator/congressmen, vote them in for change. How has that worked out? And people wonder why a large group are pissed and don’t trust them.

  4. The 70 percent of Republicans who say that Trump could win the presidency next year seem to have mistaken their own preferences for the preferences of the public at large. The two are not the same.

    They remind me of all the Reason regulars who swore Rand Paul would crush Hillary if he got the nomination.

    1. They remind me of all the Reason regulars who swore Rand Paul would crush Hillary if he got the nomination.

      So, at least two different Rand Pauls, right?

      1. He can’t even beat Christie the anti libertarian.

    2. Since we’re wishing about things that will never come true, put me down for banging my way through SEC schools, one college per week, all the tail I can handle. I swear I could do this if only my wife and all those young ladies would just say what I wanted them to say. “Okay, Brett, that sounds great.”

      1. There’s probably someone, somewhere, who has done that to the point they’re bored with it.

  5. Which is another way of saying that they believe that the Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers, although they rarely say so in such terms…

    Which brings me to my second point: The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.

    I LOLed.

    Funny only because it’s sad and true.

    1. Let’s hope that this is the beginning of the end.

      Zod knows they’ve utterly failed as an opposition party. Maybe they can provide some solid entertainment on the way out.

      1. The dims and pubes are the organization equivalent of cockroaches that could survive a nuclear holocaust.

        Best case is that they are transformed beyond recognition – which a Trump victory could do.

        1. I met the former GOP speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates one time at a party. He was a verifiable moron who was married to a wealthy barracuda. All he cared to talk about was party procedures for primaries and how to retain control over the party nominees. Actual principles didn’t seem to matter to him as long as the popularity contest came out the way he wanted.

          1. Step 1: Elect Trump
            Step 2: ????????
            Step 3: PROFIT

  6. Jesse Ventura and Annold Schwazenegger both won executive office via a combination or celebrity and anti-establishment fervor. It’s delusional to think that the same thing could not happen at the national level. Especially given that elections are nothing more than popularity contests at a fundamental level with at best, a tangential relationship to the candidates qualifications for the office that he is seeking.

    1. Jesse Ventura and Annold Schwazenegger both won executive office via a combination or celebrity and anti-establishment fervor

      And look how that turned out.

      1. So what, the assertion was that it’s crazy to think that he can get elected. Not that he’d be totally awesome in office.

        He very well, even probably, would suck – as have most other presidents.

        1. So…

          He’s electable.

          and

          He very well, even probably, would suck

          And this proves the Republican base isn’t “utterly bonkers” how?

          1. If Trump is electable, Suderman is wrong to call the 70% of GOP voters who think he can win crazy. That is the subject of the article and the thread. VG’s point stands.

            1. FWIW I don’t think he is electable. He’s not part of the party and I don’t think he’s going to generate the turnout. Hating Hillary won’t be enough to overcome that.

              Meanwhile, Trump scares the shit out of the left and they will get the turnout for their candidate if Trump is nominated.

              1. I don’t like Trump either. I would like to think he is not electable but the polls say otherwise. People claiming he is not electable are just engaging in wishful thinking. He most certainly is electable. That doesn’t mean he will be elected but you are kidding yourself if you think he can’t be elected or there isn’t at least a decent chance (say one in three) he will be elected.

                1. With the current national party split and wishy-washy middle, I don’t think he can do it against an establishment Democrat. He’ll generate a backlash vote. There’s a reason why Clinton polls way further ahead of Trump in a general election compared to how she does against Jeb or just about anybody else.

                  1. You might be right Lee. But even you have to admit you are giving a guess and it is hardly certain it will play out that way. Trump winning is not some crazy unthinkable possibility. That is the point.

                  2. The last polls I saw had Trump beating HiLIARy in a head-to-head, though not by much.
                    Biden beat all the Republicans but he is out, until HiLIARy gets indicted.

              2. Why would Trump scare the shit out of the left?
                Except for illegal immigration, which a good portion of all Americans want stopped, the biggest criticism of him is he isn’t a conservative. That should make the left, who may not like HiLIARy’s honesty, or lack thereof, positively giddy.

            2. …Trump and Carson are considered the least electable candidates in the GOP field.

              It’s yet another sign that GOP voters are warming to trump. As recently as June, just 20 percent of Republican voters viewed Trump favorably, a figure that more recently has grown past 50 percent.

              As is increasingly the case with news related to Trump, this reveals at least as much about the state of the Republican party as it does about Trump himself.

            3. Seems he supports libertarianism, the libertarianism that stays on the republican plantation.

      2. A lot of professional politicians in both states were really, really embarrassed. Which they deserve to be, every day and twice on Sundays.

        Other than that…

        1. In Minnesoda, the two parties showed a rare moment of cooperation and agreed to fuck Ventura over at every turn.

          Jesse did fine as a governor. He certainly did better than either Skip Humphrey or Norm Coleman would have done.

          I’d also take him (even the current crazy version) over our current Gov. Dayton.

  7. I find it very sad that everyone is shocked and appalled that Trump might be electable, but no one bats an eye at known criminal and sociopath Hillary Clinton’s electability.

    For fuck’s sake, people are applauding Hillary for telling jokes about how that Libyan ambassador was begging for security right before he was butchered in the streets. That alone should disqualify her from any public position, but instead the Dem-Op Media and their legions of followers are cheering for it.

    1. Well sure, everyone knows that Hillary is completely corrupt and a pathological liar, but Trump is vulgar.

    2. To the GOP establishment, Clinton is a member of an opposing union. Trump is a scab.

    3. but no one bats an eye at known criminal and sociopath Hillary Clinton’s electability.

      Trump is the devil’s buffoon. How could anyone take a poor man’s Mussolini like that seriously?

      Clinton and Bernieball are just plain fucking evil, otherwise known as Tuesday in DC.

    4. Clicked too soon.

      I’m also mildly disappointed in Reason (shocking, I know), not for openly mocking Republicans who support a candidate who is a buffoon, but not saying much at all about Democrats who support a candidate with much, much, much more serious issues.

      Trump: says mean things.

      Hillary: runs a massive money-laundering operation, never participated in most of the responsibilities of SoS, committed multiple crimes regarding email and info security, laughs brazenly about the death of an ambassador on her watch, etc. ad infinitum.

      Seriously, who should we be spending more pixels on? The buffoon, or the sociopathic crony?

      1. Clinton is the devil we know.

        Right?

        1. “Between two evils, I pick the one I’ve never tried before.”

          –Mae West

          1. I like that.

      2. The IRS was just incompetent. Oh well. That’s nothing compared to trumpmania.

      3. Awww. The Republican is buthurt because a libertarian magazine isn’t providing equally disparaging remarks about his primary opponent and towing the Republican lion.

        So sad.

        1. Frank, did you miss the part where I have no use for Republicans or Democrats, and said I had no problem with Reason mocking Trump and his supporters on account of he is a buffoon?

          1. That Hillary is an evil sociopath is a given. AND, she’s going to be the Dem nominee. There’s not a single thing anyone can do about that. FACE IT. The Republican candidate is going to be facing Hillary Clinton next November.

            WRT the Republicans, the nomination isn’t so sewn up. But the Republicans are a breath away from nominating someone who is ever so slightly less bad than Hillary.

            So where should Reason spill its ink, on a lost cause (deriding Hillary) or trying to get the Republicans to choose a candidate that’s a lot better than Trump?

            1. Hillary’s got the nom, sure, but a lot of damage can be done to her if somebody, anybody, would engage in serious investigative journalism about her criminal career.

              Its an editorial decision, I get that. I’m just disappointed in the one they’ve made. I’d’ve made a different one. Sounds like you wouldn’t.

              I think this is the point where we tell each other to start our own blog/magazine, no?

              1. Hillary’s got the nom, sure, but a lot of damage can be done to her if somebody, anybody, would engage in serious investigative journalism about her criminal career.

                You mean there is something out there we don’t know about and the media/libs haven’t already dismissed as either false or an obvious political smear campaign? She’s a known quantity and her votes are already sewn up.

                If the Republicans run a bumbling idiot against her I, for one, won’t vote for him under any circumstances.

            2. So where should Reason spill its ink, on a lost cause (deriding Hillary) or trying to get the Republicans to choose a candidate that’s a lot better than Trump?

              Ummm…why on earth would Republicans give a shit about what libertarians at Reason think about them? Your first response to RC Dean was to sneer about “Republican butthurt”. So, it’s pretty clear that you won’t vote for them and don’t really much have their interests at heart.

              1. I’ll vote for them if they run libertarian candidates. Until they do, yes, they can kiss my libertarian ass.

            3. So, Trump is vulgar and the very well defined criticism of “buffoon” but it will be better to have a criminal and a liar, who lets national security and pretty much everything else, take a back seat to her political ambitions.
              Glad to see where your priorities lie.

              1. No…

                It would be better to nominate someone who isn’t a fucking retard to run against the criminal.

      4. Seriously, who should we be spending more pixels on? The buffoon, or the sociopathic crony?

        Campus sex habits.

      5. Why not both like reason is doing?

      6. Yeah, when will Reason take Hillary to task?

        1. In general, the Reason take is either horse-race politics, devoid of substance, scoring the teams at the hearing, or “hey, look over there” at the larger Libya mess, which is legit, but also serves to gloss over the colossal sociopathy and criminality of her career.

          I just find it odd that Trump is viewed as not legitimate and a bad joke, but Hillary is viewed as a flawed but waddayagonnado candidate.

          I’d prefer neither, but if I can’t see how any sane person would give Trump a harder time than Hillary, who has committed actual crimes, and has (figurative) blood on her hands.

          1. I just find it odd that Trump is viewed as not legitimate and a bad joke, but Hillary is viewed as a flawed but waddayagonnado candidate.

            Is that wrong?

            Hillary is nearly guaranteed to be the Dem candidate. So waddayagonnado? What is Reason supposed to do? Suderman has called out her lies (OK, “falsehoods”), and it’s well known that she’s awful and corrupt. What is Reason supposed to say that is new or interesting? “Hillary still terrible and a criminal. That’s not OK.”

            Trump is treated as a joke because he is a joke, and he treats the election like a joke.

            1. So waddayagonnado?

              Publish some serious, researched articles with expert analysis by (ex-)prosecutors that lay out her criminal career in all its glory?

              1. You should stick to your current strategy of bitching about the strawman you just invented.

                Reason not going after Hillary? Ok. Have fun in Fantasyland.

        2. MJGreen,

          Good question. Yesterday Nick was on here saying how not only does Hillary’s criminality, mendacity and incompetence related to Bengazi not matter, but also the Republicans are worse than Hillary for even daring to bring up the issue.

          So yeah, when will they take Hillary to task?

          1. Yes John, we all know you didn’t read Nick’s post. You don’t need to flaunt it.

            1. You apparently read it but just didn’t understand it. Sorry but there is not much any of us can do to help you with that.

        3. The one good thing I can think of about Obamacare is that it’s not as bad & corrupt as Hillarycare would’ve been.

      7. Come on now, RC. How are the guys going to get those sweet gigs at The Daily Beast or Vox insulting Ms. Clinton?

    5. known criminal and sociopath

      For many progressive voters, that’s part of her appeal.

    6. ^^THIS^^

      And it’s beyond sad to realize our system has become so perverted that these are the only two choices we get? AAARRGGHHH!

    7. You beat me to it R C.

      Hillary is the single worst candidate by miles, yet that just got glossed right over.

        1. Vermin Supreme 2016 !!!!!

          A Friendly Fascist you can Trust !!!!!!!

          =D

        2. What do you imagine the worst that Trump could do in office?

          Then what is the worst that Hillary could do?

          1. Trump’s immigration and trade insanity is worse than what Hillary would do. She’s just a crook he’s a nutbar.

            1. So starting another war in the mideast is better than raising a few tarriffs.

            2. She’s not “just” a crook. She’s demonstrated that she would sell the whole country out for a few personal chatchkas. She clearly has that much contempt for the trust of the nation, and for the trust of every other institution she’s dealt with.

              Trump by contrast is at least a person of good will. He may be deluded, but at least he’s not going to commit acts he knows to be bad.

        3. Nobody here is saying that, come on FdA.

          Its a matter of coverage – I think, spilling over from the discussion about big issues being missed but every puppycide or school suspension being covered – they have their place, but where is anything discussing economic liberty being eroded, and an open socialist being feted by a large party of one of the two parties that get all the votes. I sure think Buffoon Trump has gotten enough coverage here in H&R…

          1. I respect the hell out of you Swiss, but you are wrong on this.

            The united Yokel position is that “he’s not as bad as Hillary”. Say what you will, but anyone who would vote for Donald Trump JUST because he can beat Hillary is, in fact, “utterly bonkers”. It’s like being given a choice between Stalin and Hitler.

            For a libertarian magazine to deride the Republican base for putting us in a position of having to choose between Stalin and Hitler is completely justified.

            1. Can you name anyone here that is going to vote for Trump? Anyone who is saying that you should?

              That is what I am talking about. Saying “So you should vote for Trump?” is just off base man. I would hope (and sure think that) Almighty God nobody here would vote for him or Hillary or Bernie or Jeb or such.

              1. I’d be willing to bet that almost ALL of the Yokels here will vote Trump if the choice is between Trump and Hillary.

                In the primary, maybe half if they think he’s the only one who can beat Hillary.

                1. I would invoke Epi’s “nice collectivization” here…

                  If by “yokels” you mean Tulpa and His Socks, or the drive bys we seem to get whenever it is an immigration thread….maybe.

                  What regular here would you say is a Trumpalo voter?

                  (Being in IL, both primaries will be decided before I can think about voting – but I don’t care if Rand even drops out, I am still voting for him).

                  1. By Yokels, I mean those here whose loyalties lie with the Republicans/conservatives over libertarian principle.

                    Hit&Republicans;.

                    1. I’m a card-carrying Yokeltarian *flashes card with the image of Murray Rothbard* and I have to say I do not see the allure of Trump.

                2. Well, as someone you’ve branded a “yokel” a couple of times, I have to say that you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. If it came down to a choice between the two, I’d vote for Hillary over Trump for no other reason than the fact that the GOP would at least go through the pretense of trying to stop the president from destroying the economy and running roughshod over our liberties.

                  1. I think the GOP in Congress would put up more resistance to Trump than to Hillary.

                3. I’d vote for him vs. Hillary, sure. Plenty unknown about what Trump would attempt as prez, but hard for me to imagine those unknowns would be as bad as just the knowns about Hillary. In fact I expect Trump would be no worse than an avg. prez, & probably a little better. Possibly a lot better, I can’t prove otherwise.

                  1. Neither can FdA but proggies gotta prog.
                    Libertine-arians=cheapskate proggies.

                    1. There’s a first.

                      Sorry friend…I’m a libertarian.

                    2. Obviously you didn’t get the yoke.

        4. Corpse of Hitler! I mean the skull!

      1. It’s a shame, too, because this is the one and only commentary that Suderman will write about this election. And he let Hillary off the hook.

        Get it together, Pete.

        1. Its subjective, and thus prone to confirmation bias, I know, but I just am baffled by Reason’s coverage of the leading candidates.

          If anything, wouldn’t it be healthy for the country that the two leading Repubs are not professional politicians? Is there perhaps a silver lining there? Why are Carson’s hardcore separation of church and state views get misrepresented and mocked? Etc.

          1. “If anything, wouldn’t it be healthy for the country that the two leading Repubs are not professional politicians?”

            Trump is absolutely a professional pol in a business sense. He has greased palms and used the system over and over.

          2. Yeah, that’s the real story: the combined poll support for Carson, Trump, & Fiorina. Who’d’a thunk they’d be crushing the current & previous public office holders at this point?

            1. I wish Rand was in that group. Other than Jim Webb, (who also has no chance), there’s nobody else that I would vote for.

    8. people are applauding Hillary for telling jokes about how that Libyan ambassador was begging for security right before he was butchered in the streets

      Huh?

      1. Didn’t watch Her Mendacityness in the recent hearings, did you?
        Not only did she claim he was probably joking in one of his concerns about security, but the underlying cause of his death was he didn’t ask for it properly, though she also said he knew better than anyone else how to ask.

    9. Waaa! It’s so UNFAIR that the media portrays Trump as a buffoon and not Hillary WAAAA!!!! I’m going to vote for a corrupt buffoon because I’m mad at the media for being UNFAIR!!!

  8. Thank God we have experts…….and mind reading ones.

    1. Bets laugh was when Suderman had to include the caveat that the ” Republican professional class” are “to be sure, sometimes wrong”.
      Sometimes?
      That is what is making the base go “bonkers”. The Republican professional class has repeatedly told the base who is “electable”, and then they lose, while the only ones that seem to get done what the base wants are the ones the professional class doesn’t support.

  9. the odds of Trump winning may be slim to none but that does not mean people in the GOP need to sell their sole to the parties so called intellectuals who don’t do what they were vote in for. this may be the final test that many were looking for to see who really cares about the country, the crazy people who like Trump vs the Rino’s who just want to keep their power no matter how it hurts the country.

    1. When Republican voters grow the fuck up, they’ll vote for Rand.

      Until then, they might as well be electing a homecoming queen.

      1. Another no compromise candidate just like the f-35? Good news! Looks like you’ll get the LSRB too!

          1. Laser Safety Review Board. If Rand gets close to winning, Trump will try to zap his supporters with a death ray, because, hey, he’s a billionaire supervillain.

      2. I just had a vision of Hillary being elected Homecoming Queen….

        \pours lye in ear to clean out his brain\

      3. Rand will get beat , by anyone on the demoncrap side, worse than anyone else, except maybe Lindsay Graham.
        You want Rand=we get HiLIARy.

    2. Now they’re coming for our shoes!

  10. Despite all his bluster, I still sometimes wonder if Trump is a shill for Hillary. I could see him winning the primary, and then shortly before the election making an announcement that he changed his mind and doesn’t want to run. Then Hillary would be a shoo-in.

  11. http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-5491.html

    According to Real Clear Politics, Hillary Clinton beats Trump by an average of 2.5%. That is barely outside the margin of error. Yet Suderman claims that the 70% of GOP voters who think Trump has a chance to win the general election are the ones who are projecting their own preferences on the electorate.

    Your opinion of Trump is a subjective question. His actual chances at winning, however, are not. Any candidate who is leading for his party’s nomination and is within an average of 2.5% of the other party’s presumptive nominee most certainly has a reasonable chance at winning the general election. How in the hell can Suderman say otherwise?

    1. Trump appeals to voters tired of PC shit and tired of managed decline. That is clearly as potent a block as the SJW core. The fact that Trump would be completely incapable of delivering anything beyond his bluster is irrelevant to his electability.

      1. I agree. I think most people have given up on any candidate living up to their promises. At this point they are willing to take anyone they think will do something and stick it to the people in Washington.

        1. Pretty much.

          It’s also possible that a president Trump could pull a Nixon goes to China and enact serious immigration reform after building a wall.

    2. We discussed this yesterday. You even predicted that Suderman might be the one plowing for Hillary at Reason.

      And so it begins.

      1. It has been obvious that Suderman is another Weigelian fake libertarian practically from the day he showed up here.

    3. In 1988 Poppa Bush was trailing Dukakis by 10%-15% in August. Wound up winning solidly 3 months later.

      1. But how are we going to get a photo of Hil driving a tank?

  12. These people, who are, to be sure, sometimes wrong but generally make it their business to be experts on national politics

    Sometimes wrong? They’re constantly wrong. There are no such things as “political experts”. Is there even a single talking head or pundit or analyst or “expert” who is right even a majority of the time?

    It’s like reading tea leaves or rolling the bones. And anyone who tells you they’re anything more than a charlatan is pulling the wool over your eyes. So these predictions can be confidently taken with a wheelbarrow of salt.

    I’m not saying that *I* know if Trump has a shot or anything like it. I’m just saying that believing someone if they say they do is idiotic and gullible as hell.

    1. There are no such things as “political experts”. Is there even a single talking head or pundit or analyst or “expert” who is right even a majority of the time?

      WRONG!

    2. Sometimes wrong? They’re constantly wrong. There are no such things as “political experts”. Is there even a single talking head or pundit or analyst or “expert” who is right even a majority of the time?

      Yeah, there are people who live and breathe this crap and know demographics pretty well. Bill Clinton is fabled as being one of these types. Make of that what you will.

      1. Bill Clinton thought ALGORE would win.
        ‘Nuff said.

    3. “The bones tell me nothing.”

      1. “Have you any love for this child?”

        1. “Now, the power to control the world is in which finger?”

          1. “What are you looking at?”

            “Your leg. I’d like to break it.”

            1. “I don’t love her, she kicked me in the face!”

              1. “Get your hair out of my face or I’ll chop it off.”

                1. “I am the greatest swordsman who ever lived.”

                  1. “Ignore the bird. Follow the river.”

    4. There is no way to tell if Trump will actually win. The election is a year out. But he sure as hell has a shot. It is not impossible that he could win. I think you have to be a first class arrogant retard to say any candidate who commands the amount of support Trump does cannot win.

      1. No, Suderman and the Republican professional class is right and 70% of Republican voters are wrong.
        Can’t you do the math?
        I think the last time Suderman marched in a parade, he insisted he was in step and everyone else wasn’t.

    5. “Whatever one feels about Trump and Carson, they have exposed how totally hollow and worthless the conventions of presidential politicking are, at least on the Republican side. Murphy dismisses Trump – and now presumably Carson, too – as a “zombie frontrunner” because they’re not behaving the way they’re supposed to: You’re meant to hire guys like Murphy and bulk up your payroll with a seven-figure campaign HQ operation that blows through millions of dollars on soft-focus campaign ads about how you had a tough but inspirational upbringing as the son of a mailman or, in Jeb’s case, the son of a one-term president. The consultants get a percentage of the bazillion-dollar ad buy, and the super-donors admire it because it looks like all the other cookie-cutter ads they fondly recall from the Romney campaign, and the McCain campaign, and the Dole campaign…”

      http://www.steynonline.com/7253/murphy-law

      1. The “experts” just can’t get it through their thick skulls that the electorate is not going to take it anymore. They want things to change and are tired of being told to fuck off. They are going to elect someone they think will change things and don’t give a shit if that person doesn’t fit the expert defined mold of what a President should be.

        1. Ah projecting yourself onto the electorate again I see.

      2. Has Murphy ever won anything beyond lucrative consulting gigs?

    6. I’m not saying that *I* know if Trump has a shot or anything like it.

      Any republican nominee in 2016 has a shot, given the historic trend of the last seventy years, they have a good shot. In fact, the worst type of candidate would be the play it safe type preferred by the establishment.

  13. I heard this morning that in the NH poll he’s leading something like 38% to 12 (Carson).

    I’m beginning to think that barring any catastrophic performances, or the effectiveness of an organized GOP establishment attack campaign, Trump may be the GOP nom.

    1. Trump may be the GOP nom.

      We’ve ignored and mocked the inbred cousin fuckers of this country for too long. It’s their turn!

      1. When did this become about Arkansans?

      2. With such a talent for snotty-mouthed costumely, I can see why you needn’t bother thinking.

        1. With such a talent for snotty-mouthed costumely, I can see why you needn’t bother thinking.

          You like the fact that Trump has a hat, don’t you?

          1. If you start up another SugarFree piece on the hat and the hair….

          2. The hat is very smart. Don’t insult the hat.

            1. Hey, I was willing to put up $5 he takes the hair DOWN!

          3. Your talent for not thinking is more impressive than I thought, supplemented as it is by wise-assed irrelevance.

  14. These people, who are, to be sure, sometimes wrong but generally make it their business to be experts on national politics, think there’s no possible way that someone as polarizing, as inexperienced, and widely disliked outside of Republican circles could actually win a general election.

    Is there any possible way that someone as polarizing, as inexperienced, and widely disliked outside of Democrat circles as Hillary Clinton could actually win a general election?

    1. Sure.

      If the establishment Repubs are running the election on the other side. They have shown they can lose to anybody.

      1. Given their love of Trump, the GOP base apparently wants in on the ‘lose at all costs’ gig too.

  15. The idea that Trump and Carson are good bets in a general election is, as the Associated Press notes, not exactly conventional wisdom amongst the party’s professional class. In fact, the opposite is true. Trump and Carson are considered the least electable candidates in the GOP field.

    Their predictive capacity of electability has not exactly been the winning bet in the last couple of elections.

  16. Today at Reason, Peter Suderman channels the ghost of Pauline Kael to analyze next year’s presidential election.

    1. Honestly, John, I wouldn’t want to know anyone that voted for Trump.

      I’ll let you get back putting a soothing balm on the butthurt from Suder-Man’s harsh words for the Stupid Party.

      1. The polls are what they are JW. As I said above, your opinion of Trump is your own and subjective. His chances of wining, however, are not. The polls have him within 2.5% of Hillary and leading the Republican primary.

        I ask you again, how can you possibly say that someone who is leading their own party’s primary and within 2.5% of the other parties presumptive nominee has no chance at winning anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy?

        Suderman is not just full of shit here, he tries to make up for it by insulting those who are not. Trump most certainly has a shot at winning. And Suderman is stupid for saying otherwise.

        1. Trump most certainly has a shot at winning.

          Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn’t.

          I happen to agree with him that in a Trump v. Clinton contest, most people will hold their nose and vote for the professional Evil Queen, knowing what she did to Snow White, or not vote at all.

          1. And you may be right about that JW. Time will tell. I do not however see how thinking Trump would win is crazy, which is what Suderman claims. Trump is withing 2.5 % of Hillary despite being the subject of months of full on media attack. I don’t think there is much more the media can do to him and if he were to win the nomination, his image would likely improve on that basis alone.

            Maybe it won’t be enough. Maybe he won’t even get the nomination or if he does totally implode after getting it. I don’t know. But it is certainly possible he won’t and that he wins. Suderman is a douche for claiming that can’t happen. It sure as hell could and might.

          2. Snow White had it coming.

          3. As JOHN says, that is your opinion.
            Is it not just as feasible that most people will hold their nose and vote for the one who hasn’t lied to the American people, repeatedly, for two, plus, decades?

  17. Oh boo hoo.

    Trump and Hillary are just symptoms… not the cause of anything (yet). What is more interesting is how we got here.

    1. This. The entire government apparatus is corrupt and we’re arguing over which of our prospective leaders will fuck us over a little bit less.

    2. Trump is where he is because of his stance on immigration and the fact that the GOP and its media allies have lied so much over the last few years. People want something done about immigration and have gone past the point of giving a shit about what people like the National Review think about who is or is not a conservative.

      1. And I would add that, among rank ‘n’ file, there is a strong idea that the “establishment” Republicans are part of the system that they hate. Boehner hasn’t helped which makes me flabbergasted that Ryan is being considered.

        1. And people like Suderman and other media pundits act like the voters are stupid because Trump is not a conservative and getting support from conservative voters. It is not the voters who are stupid. It is the media. Suderman and his colleagues don’t understand that the GOP base doesn’t give a shit about whether someone is “conservative”. They want someone who means what they say and is willing to go after the Democrats and also do something about immigration. So what if Trump supports single payer? The GOP base figures every other Republican politician is going to sell them out on Obamacare, so what the hell difference does it make?

          1. Trump won’t do anything about immigration. The things he’s proposing are impossible. Anyone who believes a promise from Trump qualifies nicely as stupid.

            1. Which things are impossible?

              1. His plan to make Mexico build a wall is not going to happen. His promise to round up and deport 11 million people is not going to happen.

                1. His plan to make Mexico build a wall is not going to happen. His promise to round up and deport 11 million people is not going to happen.

                  You just have to believe harder.

                2. Tax remittance wired to Mexico and use that to fund building the wall.

                  Not exactly making ‘Mexico pay for it’, but close enough for his supporters.

                  And before you go all that impossible commie bull shit – Kansas began taxing wire transfers a couple of years ago.

            2. First, it is not impossible to enforce the law. Second, even if he didn’t achieve all that doesn’t mean he couldn’t achieve a lot by trying. There are gradations of success.

              Second, it is not impossible to control the borders. Countries do so all over the world and the US did so for decades. The idea that it is just impossible to do so is nothing but a bullshit lie open borders people as a last resort after losing an argument.

              1. Second, it is not impossible to control the borders. Countries do so all over the world and the US did so for decades.

                He should hire some East German consultants.

                1. Yes, clearly only communist dictatorships are capable of enforcing national borders.

                  1. Yes, clearly only communist dictatorships are capable of enforcing national borders.

                    I’m going to let you think on that one for a bit.

                    Think hard.

                    1. Perhaps you should.

                    2. Perhaps you should.

                      I have.

                      I’ve come to the conclusion that the brutal police state required to enforce such a thing, which we already see the solid germ of with CBP and their 100 mile Junior Goosestep zone, isn’t worth the cost of preventing some Mezzicans coming in to pick lettuce.

                      And by endorsing such a thing, you implicitly endorse all state actions taken in enforcement of the closed border.

                      Give that thinking a try sometime. It’s invigorating.

                    3. Ok, you’re delusion.

                      You think the US was a NAZI goosestepping country in the 1950s and 60s.

                    4. And by endorsing such a thing, you implicitly endorse all state actions taken in enforcement of the closed border.

                      Horseshit. That’s like saying that you endorse police rampaging because they’re enforcing some policy you endorse, like order in the classroom or proper headlight use.

                2. Heard this shit before from people who can’t tell the difference between locking in and keeping out.

                  1. Heard this shit before from people who can’t tell the difference between a country and their private property.

                    No, taxing wire transfers is not okay. It’s 1) unconstitutional and 2) will be bypassed by cryptocurrency.

                    1. 1) It’s already being done by at least one state.

                      2) LOL

              2. That lie is one of the major factors in Trump’s appeal.

                1. That lie is one of the major factors in Trump’s appeal.

                  A lifetime of meth mouth and poor decision making is finally going to make some other kind of national impact.

          2. “The GOP base figures every other Republican politician is going to sell them out on Obamacare, so what the hell difference does it make?”

            ObamaCare is unsustainable. There is no question that it will need to be reopened and revised in the next couple of years. It cannot continue as it is.

            Come December, I think the big issue is going to be climate change anyway–which bodes badly for Hillary Clinton.

            Obama doesn’t care about Hillary’s chances anywhere near as much as he cares about his own place in history, and if pushing climate change hard in Paris come December means painting Hillary into a corner, then Hilary’s just gonna have to walk on wet paint.

            1. You are right about that. But my point was not about Obamacare in particular but the larger issue that GOP base has been sold out so many times they have stopped caring that politicians hold all the correct views. They just want one who is willing to do something about one or two things.

          3. No it’s the voters that are stupid. Anyone who supports or at all likes Trump’s immigration blather is retarded.

      2. ….and have gone past the point of giving a shit about what people like the National Review think about who is or is not a conservative.

        Bill Bennett was on some show the other day talking about how Trump was a phony conservative (compared to himself) and was lamenting the republicans being duped by him.

        All the while, I was thinking that Bennett’s a fat, ugly whining loser – is that what it means to be conservative? And that he’s been involved in politics his entire fucking adult life. Forty years or more. And in all that time, what exactly has his conservative purity accomplished? He’s made a very good living at it and no doubt is set for retirement. But what ‘conservative’ goals has he accomplished?

        1. All the while, I was thinking that Bennett’s a fat, ugly whining loser

          Have you been reading Trump’s Twitter feed or writing it?

          1. It is true. Bennett is a piece of shit. Bennett in case you have forgotten is the guy who got rich writing the “Book of Virtues” and lecturing the country on clean living and morality while he was secretly a compulsive gambler gambling his kids’ college funds away. Bennett is one of the most loathsome phonies in public life.

          2. Public image matters.

      3. Not only that, but past the point of giving a shit about whether they should be conservative, regardless of what “conservative” means.

  18. “A new poll suggests that more Republican-leaning voters believe he is capable of winning a general election next year than any other candidate. About 70 percent of Republicans say he’s a potential victor in November 2016, more than any other GOP candidate.”

    They’re wrong.

    Last poll of registered Republicans I saw showed that a higher percentage of Republicans view Trump negatively than support him for the nomination. Trump’s negatives were somewhere in the 40% range–much higher than his 25% (+/-) support. Carson’s negatives, as I recall, were at 6%.

    That translates directly into electability. When the average Republican’s favorite candidate drops out of the race, they aren’t going to the guy they view negatively. More than half the Republicans who don’t support Trump for the nomination view him negatively. As the field narrows, Trump will likely fall further and further behind because of that.

    I mean, who here thinks Trump is likely to do something between now and the primaries to make people like him even more?

    I despair for the Republican Party. Trump, Carson, and Bush are among my least favorite candidates. I like them better than Hillary, but that’s not saying much. Hillary is an incompetent, scumbag crook, who will sell her favors as President off to the highest bidder. If Hillary is elected, we won’t use the term “crony capitalism” to describe her. We’ll just call it “cronyism” ’cause that’s all it’ll be.

    1. I am not sure “likability” is going to be the issue it normally is. Even Democrats don’t like Hillary and that doesn’t seem to be holding her back. And a good number of Trump supporters view him being a total asshole as a feature.

      1. I’m not talking about likability. I’m talking about registered Republicans who view him negatively.

        If Trump has 25% support and 40% who view him negatively, that means 35% of registered Republicans are still up for grabs when the field slims down. That means he’ll have to win 70% of those 35% that are still available to him–state by state.

        That’s a tough road to victory.

        If Carson has 25% support now and 6% who view him negatively, that means 69% of registered Republicans are still up for grabs for him when the field slims down. He’ll only have to win 29% of that 69% to get over 51% support–state by state–to win the nomination.

        Carson has the wind at his back.

        That’s what I’m saying.

        1. Ken,

          It doesn’t matter how negatively they view him. What matters is how negatively they view him compared to Hillary. They could all hate his guts but still vote for him because they hate Hillary more.

          If the Democrats were running Jim Webb or someone marginally acceptable to Republicans, those likability numbers would be important. The Democrats are not doing that. They are running someone every Republicans loathes and has loathed for over 20 years. So, it really doesn’t matter how much they like the nominee, whoever it is. They will be voting against Hillary if nothing else.

          1. The ‘likeability’ think is mostly bullshit rationalization anyway.

            The overwhelming majority of voters do not know Trump personally and are responding to his media image, which is maleable.

            1. You guys are confusing likability and viewed negatively.

              I think Jeb Bush is a likable guy. I think Bernie Sanders seems like a nice enough guy.

              I view them both negatively.

              You can view people negatively for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with likability. Some people don’t like Ben Carson because they think he’s the moral majority. That isn’t about his likability. They are fundamentally opposed to having him as President. They aren’t going to break for him when the field slims down. They’re going to someone they don’t view negatively–for whatever reason.

              1. I have a likeable perception of Dr Carson.

                Which I see as a negative for him being president. I want someone in there that will kick the bureaucracy’s ass and look out for America internationally. Not someone that would be a good neighbor or cool friend.

          2. “It doesn’t matter how negatively they view him. What matters is how negatively they view him compared to Hillary.”

            That isn’t the focus of winning the nomination.

            These are registered Republicans we’re talking about. They can vote for Carson or they can vote for Trump in the primaries. Hillary isn’t anywhere on the ballot.

            Whether they think Trump or Carson or Bush or some other candidate can win against Hillary may be part of their thinking, but they’re still choosing between Trump or Carson or someone else on this ballot.

            Let’s think of it this way. If almost twice as many registered Republicans view Trump negatively as support him, why wouldn’t that hurt him when the field narrowed down–and they’re forced to choose between Carson, Trump, and Bush? If Carson’s hurdle to jump to the nomination is half the size of Trump’s (and Trump’s is twice as high as Carson’s), why wouldn’t that impact the likely outcome of the primaries?

            1. You don’t need a majority to win the nomination. You need the largest plurality. If your opposition is divided, you can win. Moreover, once you look like the presumptive winner, people start supporting you for that reason alone. Most Republicans didn’t like Romney either. That didn’t stop Romney from winning the nomination because there never was a candidate who could unite the people who didn’t like Romney.

              1. Because of his negatives, Trump has the highest hurdle to a plurality.

                When the results in Iowa and New Hampshire come back, the donors will flock to the front runners, and they won’t be so eager to support someone’s vanity campaign.

                The field will narrow after Iowa and New Hampshire, and as it narrows, it will become harder and harder for Trump to overcome his negatives. When it comes to Trump, 40% of registered Republicans DO NOT WANT.

                Hillary’s negatives are remarkably high, as well. It’s just that she isn’t facing much of any competition. When Obama’s term ends, watch for an announcement that Joe Biden will be joining the board of the Clinton Foundation. If Biden didn’t get some money out of Hillary not to run with all that leverage he had, then he’s the dumbest politician in Washington. He may have sold her the White House.

                1. Trump already has a plurality. The only question is whether it is a big enough plurality. And it is hardly clear that it won’t be.

                  1. How many candidates do you expect will still be in the race for the nomination after Super Tuesday?

                    California’s primary is later than that.

                    When whoever wins the nomination gets the number of delegates needed to win, there will probably be only two candidates that are still in the race.

  19. Carson may not make a terrible President, but he would certainly make a confusing one. People simply cannot comprehend the man. The evangelicals think they’re getting something they’re not, and the people who are against him because they think he’s coming from the religious right are even more confused than the evangelicals.

    In my opinion, Carson is positioned as the guy that’s most likely to win the nomination, but if he does, people (in the media, in the party, and the country) have no conception of what they’ll be getting. He’s going to be the biggest surprise/enigma since James Buchanan was elected.

    For instance, When Carson tells people he wouldn’t vote for a Muslim (because he wouldn’t trust their belief in the separation of church and state), the religious right flocks to him because they think he’s imposing his Christian beliefs on the nation–and the SJW progressives hate him because they think he’s attacking the separation of church and state!

    Carson will be the Rorschach President! Everybody looks at him and sees what’s in their own minds.

    1. Carson will be the Rorschach President! Everybody looks at him and sees what’s in their own minds.

      Worked for Obama. Twice.

      1. It’ll be worse than that for a couple of reasons.

        For one, Republicans despised Obama from the get go. In the example I gave, Democrat SJWs are opposing Carson–for standing up for their establishment rights. That’s weird. In that one example, however, it’s also that the Republicans think the anti-Muslim thing was about imposing Christianity on the country…

        It’s one thing to fool the opposition. Quite another to “fool” your support–although Carson wasn’t trying to fool anybody. He was just standing up for separation of church and state as he understands it. But no one else out there understands it in those terms.

        Second reason: Republicans don’t like it when they don’t get what they expected. Democrats don’t care if Obama goes to war in Libya despite presenting himself as all anti-Iraq War and our last best hope for world peace. But when Christian conservatives find out that this guy is more fundamentally opposed to using the government to violate people’s establishment rights than anyone at the ACLU, it’s gonna blow their freaking minds.

        And that’s just one example.

        Carson is a fundamentalist Christian, but people have no conception of what that means to him–and what it means is the exact opposite of what 99% of Americans think it means.

        1. It’s one thing to fool the opposition. Quite another to “fool” your support

          Its true, Obama has an excellent record of living up to his promises on Gitmo, no mo war, climate change, etc.

          1. Like I said, I don’t think Democrats care about their candidates lying. Not as much as Republicans care.

            Democrats expect their candidates to lie. LGBT groups supported Obama back when he was campaigning on the slogan that “marriage is between a man and a woman”.

            They were counting on him lying.

            Republicans counting on their candidates lying? Not so much.

      2. It’s because black contains red, blue and all the colors.

    2. He’s going to be the biggest surprise/enigma since James Buchanan Earl Carter was elected.

      FTFY

  20. Which brings me to my second point: The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.

    I don’t like Trump as much as the next cosmo [social signaling out of the way] but I’m not ready to call them “bonkers”.

    The Primary choice the Democrats are excited about are a brazenly corrupt criminal who lacks the charm of Pappy O’Daniel, or Pol Pot.

    And yes, I think you can blame Obama. He was such a colossal disappointment that Dems are torn between the candidate they believe can win (Clinton) and the one they actually want (Sanders).

    1. The Primary choice the Democrats are excited about are a brazenly corrupt criminal who lacks the charm of Pappy O’Daniel, or Pol Pot.

      So the choice is either a criminal or an unadulterated buffoon?

      I think utterly bonkers is a gross understatement.

      1. My point is that GOP voters are not some unique bloc- to be contrasted with Democrats as ‘bonkers’.

        1. I’m sorry, did I miss the part where Suderman said Republicans are more bonkers than Dems?

  21. “…conventional wisdom amongst the party’s professional class.”

    This would be the same people whose conventional wisdom put the architect of Romneycare up as their nominee running against a guy who just used it as a blueprint for Obamacare. Uh huh.

    That is the dumbest fucking move in the history of the world. It may even be the mythical peak derp.

    1. Suderman and his wife both are all about the wisdom of top men. Both of them will believe anything a top man with the right credentials says.

    2. Definitely not. Letting Boehner negotiate a budget deal on his way out that takes Obama off the hook for the rest of his Presidency. Surely, either Boehner was a Democrat all along or he is so mendacious and venal he just stabbed his voters in the back on his way out.

      1. I think it was part of Ryan’s deal to run for Speaker. This way he can claim that he had nothing to do with it and avoid the situation until after the presidential election.

        Establishment Republicans are masters of avoiding responsibility for this type of crap.

        1. Truly, Americans have the leadership we deserve. Fuck me. The downside of our system is that only blame-shedding sociopaths survive long enough to rise to power.

      2. I would have to squint really hard at a lot of things the R’s have done under Obumbles to decide the dumbest.

        They really do live up to their name.

      3. Surely, either Boehner was a Democrat all along or he is so mendacious and venal he just stabbed his voters in the back on his way out.

        There’s been very little difference between republicans and democrats at the national level for the last generation. Both are happy faced fascists, whose primary disagreements revolve around which cronies get first access to the loot.

        1. Right, but here’s an issue everyone could be running on next year. Even zero sum game theory of electoral politics suggest this is a poor compromise. Unless you plan to write a book about how you worked with America’s first black President to thwart the racists in your own party.

  22. My hypothesis is that this is the result of the rise of group-think. Before the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, people consumed their news from a limited number of sources. My hometown newspaper had their liberal and conservative opinion writers and strived to maintain some amount of moderation.

    Now misinformation masquerading as “news” can be found everywhere. We have two national news organizations (Fox News and MSNBC) that don’t even try to hide their respective agendas. I can log in to sites like HuffPost or Breitbart (and Reason) and immerse myself in an echo chamber of ideas that help me to reinforce any opinion I want.

    The problem is when people stop seeking (or are no longer offered) alternative opinions and stop seeking to grow intellectually. In my experience, both conservatives and liberals are prone to this, but for some reason conservatives seem more susceptible. Maybe because on average conservatives are older and less likely to seek new opinions or change their thoughts. Liberals trend younger and (with some exceptions) may be less likely to shut out alternative thoughts.

    1. There is a large contingent on either side of the FEC mandated political divide that will vote party line regardless of the candidate. Party affiliation is like religion. Giving it up requires an admission that you were wrong and most people are loath to do that.

    2. Now misinformation masquerading as “news” can be found everywhere….

      Indeed. See the takedown of a fabulist NYT article earlier today as an example.

    3. “Liberals trend younger and (with some exceptions) may be less likely to shut out alternative thoughts.”

      Hahahahahahahaha…..

      1. It’s actually this kind of group-think response that I’m talking about B.P.

        Each successive generation whines about how bad the next generation is. The current conservative theme is that all Millenials are entitled PC thugs. While there are certainly good examples to cite reaffirming the contention that Universities (especially) are becoming institutionally illiberal, the vast majority are doing the same things we all did in our teens and twenties.

        1. I don’t think that really is a conservative theme and it has nothing to do with millenials being liberal.

          In my experience being a millennial myself they are very entitled with respect to what i have seen before. I agree they do the same stuff before except they expect others to take care of them. I think it has to do with coddling

          1. Maybe there is something to this. My grandpa did walk 10 miles to school every morning in a blizzard, backwards. My dad only walked 5 miles…and I took a school bus.

            1. My cousin is one of the most egregious examples. Loaned money (0% interest) from our grandpa to buy a car. She buys it and then decides since he is so old that he does not need the money anymore…refuses to pay back. She also constantly complains about student loans and not being able to pay them… while going to 30 or so baseball games a year about 45 minutes away. Which costs gas, parking, beer, tickets

              1. When I was a kid we had losers too. My experience is that while millenials are more coddled than previous generations, they are also fucking smart. Way smarter on a whole than other generations. The college hires we just onboarded are really cool kids for the most part.

                Also, if the kids are bad, blame the parents. Maybe its that Gen Xers are shitty parents???

                1. The average 25 year old has parents who were born in about 1960. Not Gen Xers.

                2. My experience is that while millenials are more coddled than previous generations, they are also fucking smart

                  My experience is that employers put pictures on their cash registers, and went to automatic change dispensers…

        2. Finally a paragraph I can mostly agree with.

          Speaking of group-think, the first two paragraphs of your missive are nothing but conventional-wisdom boiler plate issued by the usual talking heads who are handsomely remunerated for clucking on about the booboisie.

          As for the part I quoted, you really think the left is less likely to shut out alternative thoughts than the right? The left owns the culture, so those on the right have no choice but to at least consider the ideas fed to them by their ideological adversaries. Those on the left can happily walk from sociology class to the teevee to watch the Daily Show, the Today Show, etc., etc., ad nauseum without ever encountering a challenging idea. Naomi Klein can crank out a book like Shock Doctrine, which illustrated perfectly how some on the left don’t even understand the arguments made by those on the right or the beliefs of the various factions of those on the right, and sell a zillion copies, receive rave reviews, etc. Hell, this very website has cataloged time again how certain ideas are so radioactive to leaders on the left that people need to be drummed out of polite society for daring to express them, a system of trigger warnings needs to be erected, etc.

          Standard disclaimer: Both sides of the political spectrum are insane in their own ways.

          1. My point was not to say that the left is better than the right. Instead my point was that youth (who trend left) are more open minded than the middle aged and elderly (who trend right).

            1. The elderly who elected FDR and Carter?

            2. The elderly who elected FDR and Carter?

        3. I don’t remember us demanding people not speak on campus. We were more likely to protest outside their speech, or go in and shout questions at them.

          Not whine about how their presence hurt our self esteem.

    4. What are some examples of alternatives opinions that conservatives don’t seek? Also the same but for liberals? What would be some examples of changing their thoughts and opinions with respect to what?

      1. Some of these are snarky and there may be some crossover, but in general I’ve found:

        Conservative Dogma:

        1. All members of the US military are HEROES simply by signing up.
        2. All cops and Firefighters are HEROES.
        3. America is a Christian nation.
        4. America is the greatest, richest, bestest country on earth (except when being mismanaged by Democrats)
        5. Texas is a bastion of liberty and freedom / California is a liberal shithole.
        6. The kids aren’t alright.
        7. Immigrants = OK if from Europe / Bad if from Mexico
        8. Jesus was white
        9. “I’m not a racist. Just a realist. (see #7)
        10. Governement is always bad…Unless run by Republicans who will use it responsibly.
        11. A police state will enhance our Freedom. “Why worry about it unless you are doing something wrong silly?”
        12. Liberals/Progressives are fascists because the word Nazi is a conjunction of National Socialist and socialist = progressive. Also, liberals like government and so do fascists.

      2. Liberal Dogma:

        1. Global Warming is man made and we can control it.
        2. War is bad when waged by Republicans / War is just when waged by Democrats
        3. New England is a liberal wonderland / Texas is a backward dusty shithole
        4. Anything can be solved by more government.
        5. Minorities are virtuous simply be being minority
        6. Identity politics are good (as long as they aren’t white identity politics)
        7. “My head is not up my ass. I’m just looking for new vistas”
        8. Government is always good…Except the military, FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other evil agency enabled by blind faith in government
        9. Europe is a shining beacon on a hill for us to follow.
        10. Science is my God (my sister actually said this on Sunday)
        11. Conservatives are fascists because the fascists referred to themselves as right-wing and the Nazis were racists like conservatives are.

  23. I want to move to the moon. The darkside….

    1. Where the Nazi base is hidden?

      /Iron Sky

  24. You know. I just might enjoy this Presidential election cycle. All of the candidates are scaring the shit out of everyone.

    1. I don’t think our political system is fixable.

      I also think that the longer it takes to completely break down, the more damage it will do.

      If it breaks down this election cycle, I think that’s a good thing. And if Trump v Hillary is the price we pay for breaking this political system, that’s OK by me.

  25. All of these polls need a caveat that this far ahead of the election, they are basically random number generators.

  26. The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.

    What is the surprise? Bluetards elected a guy that claimed that now is the time that the waters begin to recede and the planet began to heal. The fact that Redtards are thinking about electing a creature like Donald Trump should surprise no one. After all, this is the party that thought John Fucking McCain would make a good candidate for President.

    1. I don’t think they are bonkers. I think they just don’t fucking care. They figure every politician is going to screw them. They are also tired of being told what to do and what to think. Voting for Trump is nothing but a brand. It is a way to tell people like Suderman to go fuck themselves.

      Would Trump be a good President? Probably not. But of the choices who would be? Given that fact, I don’t think it is bonkers to take the “tell them to go fuck themselves choice”. I would think of all people, the people on here would understand that. You guys are always claiming there is no difference between the two parties. Well, if there isn’t, why not vote for the guy who is going to cause the most trouble and is the best way to tell Washington to fuck off?

      1. There certainly is a backlash against the ruling class, more so among the reds than the blues I think.

        The “tell them to go fuck themselves” choice is a sentiment I thoroughly encourage. I think Ben Carson is capturing some of that, just by not being an establishment candidate.

        If I was a Republican, I would be a fan of Ted Cruz. The man stands up to both Dems and Repub leaders. He fights for what he believes, which is something I can respect.

        There is a difference between the two parties, I just don’t think there is much of a difference at the national leadership level, which is where the most change needs to happen the quickest.

        1. I think that the media and the parties are very foolish to ignore the popularity of Trump and Sanders. The voters are tired of nothing ever changing and being lied to. The success of Trump and Sanders is just the voters saying “fuck it lets vote for someone who means business and will clean house up there”. Maybe neither Trump or Sanders would do any such thing. I don’t know. That, however, is not the point. The point is the voters want things to change and they are going to find someone who will cause that to happen. The parties and the various media mavens like Suderman better figure that out or they are going to get someone they are not going to like very much and likely won’t be very good for the country.

          1. The point is the voters want things to change and they are going to find someone who will cause that to happen.

            True. I am in this camp as well. More liberty, now.

            The parties and the various media mavens like Suderman better figure that out…

            I’m very cynical, and I don’t think they will. Change will happen in spite of these people, not because of these people.

  27. WHERE MY HIT AND RUN GONE?

    1. WHY CANT SUDES GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLE DAYS OF PIMPING OUT THIS HEP NEW CAT BARACK OBAMA WHO IS GONNA CHANGE HOW WASHINGTON WORKS???

      Seriously, let’s review the Obama voters again here on the Reason payroll, especially the ones who are now calling the GOP base bonkers.

      1. You morons keep saying this in posts written by people who did not vote for Obama. Gillespie voted Libertarian. Suderman says he didn’t vote the last two elections (in 2004, the fake libertarian Sudes voted for Bush!). Who are these horrid Obama voters that you keep whining about? How many of them are still on the payroll? I know a few writers who voted for him in ’08 still get their pieces run over here, but the main contributors here are either new or didn’t vote for Obama.

        And a serious question: What does it matter if he voted for Obama in 2008? Do you have any gripe with it other than the symbolism of him registering a sign of support for the bad team? Would you have the same problem if he voted for McCain?

        1. He’s lying to you, dude. That’s what dishonest fakers do.

        2. MJ,

          My point is that plenty of writers at Reason voted for Barack the first time around, and I find it a bit ridiculous for Suderman to call out the GOP base as “bonkers” when his own colleagues supported someone as disastrous as Obama. Yes I realize he didn’t vote for him.

          Seriously, does anyone think Trump would be worse than what we’ve had over the last eight years? If so, how?

          1. Yes duh he’d be worse. He’d choke trade, immigration, and seems to like single-payer healthcare. THAT’S WORSE.

          2. “Plenty”? They polled a lot of people, many of whom simply contribute to the magazine. And a lot of the reasons given for voting for Obama in 2008 sound fine to me. And supporting Trump in 2015 is WAY more bonkers than being one of the many who were impressed by Obama’s speeches in 2008. I didn’t see what those people saw in Obama, but I understood thinking that Obama could be different and slightly reasonable. Trump is an insane, petulant, contradictory clown.

            Yes, Trump has the potential to be much worse. He openly talks about himself and the position as if he were going to become a dictator.

    2. Warty,

      There isn’t a single person on this thread who has said anything good about Trump. The entire issue is Suderman’s claim that anyone who thinks Trump has a chance at winning is just crazy.

      Why does admitting the obvious fact that Trump has a shot at winning make someone a Trump supporter? I don’t support Trump and I hope he doesn’t win. I am not going to kid myself and pretend he can’t win, because clearly he could.

      1. I don’t support Trump and I hope he doesn’t win.

        Trump v. Hillary?

        I’m hoping Trump wins. I’d like to see a third party win (and there’s another interesting angle that Reason isn’t looking at: how do the two worst candidates in living memory affect the third party angle?), but that ain’t gonna happen next year.

        1. Yes. I hope he wins over Hillary. I would rather see another Republican win. But honestly, Trump winning wouldn’t bother me that much. He is as you say better than Hillary. And the butt hurt from people like Suderman would be fucking priceless. The country might not deserve a President Trump, but there are a whole lot of people in Washington who richly deserve it.

          1. Yeah his policies will probably bring about another depression but FUCK THOSE GUYS amirite?

      2. Suderman is most certainly not saying that Trump has no shot. He’s saying that Trump has a shot because TEAM RED has completely lost its marbles.

        1. That is not how I read it. He sayd

          Which brings me to my second point: The Republican base has gone totally and utterly bonkers.

          It is extremely difficult to imagine Donald Trump winning a presidential election against a Democratic candidate of any competence…

          And that brings me to my final point, which is that Trump’s success reveals not only the gaps between the GOP base and the party elite, but between the GOP base and the rest of the country.

          The entire article is nothing but Suderman being a smug douche bag. He is most certainly saying Trump has no chance and the GOP is nuts to think he does.

      3. There isn’t a single person on this thread who has said anything good about Trump.

        HE’S A MAVERICK, PLAYING BY HIS OWN RULES!

        There, happy?.

        1. Why do you think I am a Trump supporter? Does admitting the reality that he could win make me one?

          1. I wasn’t sure why you felt that criteria had to be met. We’re supposed to say nice things about politicians?

            For someone who isn’t a supporter, you do seem to come down with chronic butthurt awfully quickly, over criticism of him. It might just be an overactive contraritary gland. I’d have that checked out.

            1. The facts are what they are. My opinion of Trump has nothing to do with his chances of being elected. I don’t like Hillary either, but I would laugh at Suderman if he ever claimed the Democrats are crazy to think she can win.

              As far as my opinion of Trump, I don’t like him but I don’t think he is any worse than a good number of other politicians. How by any objective standards is Trump “worse” than Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham? I don’t see how.

              What I do like about Trump is how angry and butthurt he makes people like Suderman. I love it that he says things they don’t think should be said and just doesn’t give a fuck what any of them think. That is immensely enjoyable. As I said above, the country likely doesn’t deserve a Trump Presidency, but God do people like Suderman and a lot of others deserve one.

              1. How by any objective standards is Trump “worse” than Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham?

                It’s the hat, John. Suder-Man clearly doesn’t like hats.

                They’re all terrible people and terrible choices, but Trump manages to draw a lot of attention to himself. No idea why that is.

  28. And that brings me to my final point, which is that Trump’s success reveals not only the gaps between the GOP base and the party elite, but between the GOP base and the rest of the country.

    Peter,

    Have you been listening to Radio Derb? Derbyshire’s thesis on the ‘cold civil war’ would explain the last part of that.

    The popularity of *both* Trump and Carson is more difficult to explain. Carson is the redneck candidate. Evangelical US Christians don’t give a flying hoot that he’s black. The NYT pundit class will scratch their beards over that until Armageddon.

    1. Carson’s popularity is very easy to explain. He is honest. People like Carson because he is not a politician and they see him as a good, honest and trustworthy person. It is a bit astounding that Suderman can’t understand that and instead just thinks his supporters are crazy.,

      1. Probably because Carson is an inarticulate borderline retard.

      2. I’ve heard Suderman grew up in a very conservative Christian family. I don’t know what his own beliefs are.

    2. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Carson is popular because he is an unapologetic Christian Whether he’s honest or not is something yet to be known.

      1. Perception is reality in politics. People think of him being honest. And that is all that matters. And I frankly see no reason to believe he is not honest. I don’t know the man personally but I see no evidence he is not honest.

        1. Perception is reality in politics.

          And yet you misunderstood Nick’s post yesterday morning. Beautiful.

          1. No I didn’t. Nick was butthurt that the Republicans didn’t spend their time feeding his nonintervention pony. His claims that “they just helped Hillary” are fucking absurd. As if getting up there whining about Libya would have done any damage either.

      2. People think HRC is honest too.

        Carson has a Christian philosophy. He’s going nowhere with that. Trump, like HRC, is a cold-calculating pragmatist. Vote, or not, for your favored pragmatist.

        1. No one thinks HRC is honest. Not even her supporters.

        2. People think HRC is honest too.

          That’s because they are bonkers.

  29. [T]he contemporary GOP […] is not very concerned with conservatism or with policy at all, save for vague anti-immigration fantasies; it is attracted to bullying, often intentionally offensive rhetoric and politicians who promise what is obviously impossible[…]

    The fact that such a huge part of the voting population are attracted to the sort of anti-immigrant rhetoric that people like Trump and the Trumpistas are spewing should give you a clue that those voters are socialists by heart. The fact that they’re so easily swayed by crackpot economic theories suggests that most GOP voters harbor fascist-like ideas. That is scary.

    1. Yeah Mexican. For the forty years between the 1920s and the 1965 Kennedy immigration reform when the country allowed virtually no immigration, the country was socialists. And the people who passed the immigration laws of the 20s were socialist too.

      You are not a stupid person. Why do you let this topic cause you to say such stupid things?

      1. Re: John,

        Yeah Mexican. For the forty years between the 1920s and the 1965 Kennedy immigration reform when the country allowed virtually no immigration, the country was socialists.

        Anti-immigration arguments are 100% based on collectivist notions, first thing. Second: FDR and Harry Hopkins.

        So who says the US wasn’t socialist?

        1. Well, Anti-immigration arguments MAY be 100% based on collectivist notions IF the immigration is to a nation that doesn’t have “well developed” welfare and benefits system. But given that a lot of the immigrants may well be bringing collectivist notions with them from their home countries, I guess we have to accept that all humans are fallible and hold regrettable views which we disagree with.

          Let’s not claim that most otherwise-legal immigrants would gladly and overwhelmingly become net-productive members of their new home – it’s a debatable point and worthy of discussion – but there’s scant real evidence that free and unlimited immigration to the US is an unambiguous good, given the current polices in place regarding welfare and benefits, let alone the impact on society as it stands today.

        2. Who says the US wasn’t, everyone in the world who understands the meaning of the word.

          Again Mexican, you let this topic make you stupid.

    2. OM looks at this from an economics professor POV. The fact that no two macro economics professors agree with each other does not sway him from telling us how it should be.

      1. Re: widget,

        I see things from the standpoint of a professor of SOUND economics, W. There is a difference.

    3. It really proves that for a huge swath of the Republican base, immigration trumps (no pun intended) everything else. They’re that fucking nuts about hating foreigners. A candidate can be on the opposite side on abortion, gay marriage, health care , you name it, but if he’s the one guy promising to expel the Mexicans, he’s got their vote.

      1. Of course nobody could oppose illegal immigration unless they hated foreigners.

        1. Re: Homple,

          Of course nobody could oppose illegal immigration unless they hated foreigners.

          Sure, just like people were not opposed to rum running just because they hated alcohol. No! Can’t happen! People are principled!

          (Are people getting their knowledge of logic from the back of boxes of Wheaties or something?)

          1. Fruit Loops !! =D

  30. Hillary is a blatant corrupt liar and a criminal, but she might actually be less bad, from a libertarian perspective than Trump would be. The reason is because she has no actual ideological values that she won’t sacrifice to stay in power so she is guaranteed not to stay to far too the extremes. She would govern as a cronyist centrist. By contrast, Trump might actually try to implement his anti-trade, anti-immigrant, populist policies, and what’s more he might permanently transform the gop in a way that would make it more of a big government nativist coalition. If your worried about the trend that trump represents and want the GOP to move on a libertarian direction, you might be better off with Clinton, because at least she will be a predictable b preservative of the status quo. She probably also go along with marijuana decriminalization and immigration reform, so there might be some positives. And the n in for years ma the the crazies will have leaned their lesson and the GOP will be purged.

    1. Hazel, are you seriously arguing that someone who has no values won’t go to extremes?

      1. No. Trump is a person with no values who is going to extremes by appealing to the rabble.
        However, an intelligent pragmatist who is only interested in staying in power would not go to extremes. You don’t want to rock the boat too much or piss off anyone important. Hillary Clinton is interested in Hillary Clinton, she is not an idealogue like Sanders, or a demagogue like Trump. She’s an establishment politician who gets her support from establishment players, which means that she isn’t going to do too much different, since the establishment by definition has an interest in keeping things the way they are.
        .
        By comparison, Trump promises to move the country, and the Republican party, in exactly the wrong direction on many issues. If Clinton = 0 and Trump = -5, I will select 0.

    2. There is one great advantage to a Republican President; the media won’t be in the tank for them and will actually hold them to some standard of behavior. The problem with a Hillary Presidency is that the media would excuse any amount of corruption and criminality in her administration. Electing Hillary is the condemning the country to a form of totally unaccountable gangster government beyond anything that has ever been seen in this country.

      Think about it, is there anything up to and including murder that would cause Hillary to be impeached? Any Republican President would be subjected to an enormous amount of media scrutiny and would be held to at least some standard of accountability.

      1. Ohhh poor Team Red. Nobody likes them….

        And yet, only a handful of years ago Hilary’s husband WAS impeached for lying about getting his willy waxed. And the last time the whole country (including the media) united behind a president it was Bush, post 9/11 (90% or so approval rating, wasn’t it)?

      2. By comparison, the Republican VOTERS will not hold a Trump President to any standard of behavior. He can be in favor of a bloated government, higher taxes, more trade barriers, and more spending, but as long as he’s promising to stick it to the mexicans, the Republican voters will love it. Why should any Republican even bother to *pretend* to believe in limited government anymore? The voters obviously don’t care. All you have to do is act like a bigoted buffoon and you’ll get more votes.

  31. Anyone else having deja vu over the same kinds of articles about Reagan?

  32. By contrast, Trump might actually try to implement his anti-trade, anti-immigrant, populist policies,…

    I am most definitely in favor of stopping Muslim immigration to the US. Trump could be wrong about everything else, but if does that, he’s OK. I would be banned in Germany and Sweden for saying this. Not directly and not with full measure, but there would be government officials knocking at Nick Gillespie’s door this afternoon explaining to him how he should be more proactive about moderating H&R.

    1. Re: widget,

      I am most definitely in favor of stopping Muslim immigration to the US.

      The schizophrenic nature of American politics and policy is evident when you have candidates that say they will stem the influx of immigrant while, at the same time, you have a bureaucracy that can take your livelihood if you ever dare discriminate against someone on the basis of his or her origin. For instance private citizens cannot discourage immigration of a certain group of individuals by simply exercising their right to property by refusing to rent or sell to, let’s say, Muslims. At the same time, private individuals are discouraged by this same bureaucracy to rent, sell or hire people who the bureaucracy deems “illegal immigrants.”

      The frustration the Trumpistas are externalizing so vociferously is focused on the WRONG CULPRIT. The problem is not immigrants or open borders. The problem is the little respect shown by the bureaucracy for people’s PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    2. “I am most definitely in favor of stopping Muslim immigration to the US. ”

      Then you are enemy of freedom.

      1. Openness with borders, societies, whatever – but only on two-way streets.

      2. Guilty as charged.

    3. Because Muslim immigration is such a huge problem in the US right now, we have to stop those Mexicans from coming here.

  33. Nope Trump is not winning the election. Women and minorities will turn out to stop him. Millenials are also uninterested in rule by racists.

    1. Not every minority is a Mexican. And not every Mexican is pro open borders. Since you have likely never met one, I can forgive you for not knowing any better.

      1. Hey! Reason doesn’t pay well enough for him to have household help! But there are many good latin restaurants near his office.

  34. We at Politics of Logic are not Republicans, but we are not sure the 70% of Republicans are wrong. In most years we would agree with Reason, but when the opponent will be either Clinton, who is at least as unlikable as Trump but less skilled, or crazy Uncle Bernie, it’s tough to say that he isn’t electable.

    We certainly don’t want to test the theory, and history suggests it will be Bush or Rubio, but logically how can one say that ANY Republicans is unelectable in 2016 against these two?

  35. And while Hillary Clinton, who is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee, has many flaws, a lack of basic political competence and capabilities is not one of them.

    Say again?

    1. That phrase caught my eye too. Well, she did manage to help get Khadafi killed, so she wasn’t completely inept during her term as SoS.

      Other than that, what does Suderman mean by, “Basic political competence and capabilities?”

    2. While Hillary has the Clinton machine behind her, she is not a skilled or competent politician. She is awkward, stiff and and generally unlikable.

  36. Fujimori. Berlusconi. The guy you just reported on in Guatemala. Why can’t it happen again?

  37. It’s hilarious as fuck to watch Reason, of all publications, endlessly appeal to authority by way of “political experts” on who is and isn’t electable or “presidential”.

    The last Republican that Republican “political experts” got elected was George W. Bush. So, I mean, even if they were right, should we really be rooting for their success?

    And that aside, cut the bullshit. If Trump behaved in exactly the same way, and got exactly the same support, but took policy positions with which Reason agreed, we wouldn’t be having these ridiculous articles about how such an impudent, inexperienced beast of a man would besmirch the high dignity of the office of president. The sudden faux-reverence for “political experts” and some quasi-aristocracy of the political class is nauseating.

    1. I could not have said it better. Reason is fast becoming just another elitist media outlet that thinks it knows what is best for others.
      So much for libertarianism at T-reason.

  38. What this cute little post reveals is that too many at Reason are still missing the point. Trump has convinced the GOP voter with one thing that one would think Reason writers would respect: actual success. All establishment politicians and pundits said he could not survive the comments he made at the start of the race. Not only did he survive them, he essentially pulled the pants down, underwear and all, of the media’s perceived ability to destroy anyone that does not abide PC speech – to everyone’s benefit. Voters, including many Democrats, are totally fed up with the constant excuses of what is “realistic” as a reason for failure to make any progress, and Trump has proved that conventional wisdom is wrong at least at some level. And as for immigration, they are tired of being told that not wanting anymore ILLEGAL immigration is the same as being anti-immigrant, and that there is nothing we can do but surrender our borders. I won’t vote for Trump, but I understand that the GOP voter is favoring Trump not so much because they favor all he says, but rather as a raised middle finger at you and everyone else who continues to tell them that what they believe does not matter, and that they are, as you say anti-immigrant and “bonkers”.

  39. I actually see a lot parallels with how the media reacted to Reagan. Trump could very conceivably win, and it would be delightful to see the media and political class lose their collective minds over it. Trump may not be the best of two evils, but I would prefer him to Hillary. I also like the idea of cutting off access to welfare for illegals.

  40. I actually see a lot parallels with how the media reacted to Reagan. Trump could very conceivably win, and it would be delightful to see the media and political class lose their collective minds over it. Trump may not be the best of two evils, but I would prefer him to Hillary. I also like the idea of cutting off access to welfare for illegals.

  41. I actually see a lot parallels with how the media reacted to Reagan. Trump could very conceivably win, and it would be delightful to see the media and political class lose their collective minds over it. Trump may not be the best of two evils, but I would prefer him to Hillary. I also like the idea of cutting off access to welfare for illegals.

  42. If they are to voting to get rid of the status quo, it makes sense to vote in outsiders! We could sure use a change, and Republicans aren’t the only ones who think so.! It’s surprising that no third party surfaced!

  43. After years of failure and betrayal by the “establishment” Republicans, what dya expect? Trump may be revolting, but a little revolution is good.

  44. I imagine it’s not that much better for the other side since the middle is apparently out of their effing minds as well, and we know how irrirating those pesky sway votes can get;-)

  45. Gorman Seedling/Gen Buck Turgidson 2016!

  46. Democrats are selling Paternalism – plain and simple fact, no matter which candidate is speaking.
    What are the Republicans selling – do they know? Can we tell by listening to them?

    1. IQ Test: Obama Supporters

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      Take your time Grant Democrats get an extra hour.

  47. “For others, he comes across as an inexperienced reality show buffoon. ”

    Tell me Peter did you whine that loud when a Community Organizer name B.O. got elected?

    Obama — Experience

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  48. And the p-r-o-f-e-s-s-I-o-n-a-l consultants working for the GOP have such a great track record? Eh? Maybe they need to LISTEN to the voters.

    Is the GOP puts up another RINO, like Christie, or a Dynesty boy, like Bush, I’ll just go target shooting instead of voting for someone I hate almost as much as I despise most Democrats.

  49. Not really news, but the base will accept that Trump is obviously unelectable and come around eventually. The party leadership will force them too. It appears the process has already started.

  50. Peter, you in live in fairyland (Washington, DC) where lying is truth, greed is competence, and fooling enough of the people all of the time is nirvana. That affects everyone in tkwn.

    Stop reading polls. Move to Cedar Rapids for a year and roam about flyoverland. You might learn that the hicks are not rubes.

  51. One thing that is extremely clear is that Trump is far and away the best campaigner among those running for Republican nomination. He is almost certainly not well-suited to govern as president, but then again, who among his opponents really is?

    It is not clear that Trump is actually considered unelectable by the GOP campaign professionals, but could be a combination of their being paid by (or want to be paid by) others who view Trump as a liability, those working for candidates who don’t perceive the ability to ride any coattails, or are simply so inured to the Republican establishment that they can’t admit that someone who does not appear to be drawn into the Republican establishment could be the best candidate.

    While the Republican voting base might be “bonkers”, that does not diminish the possibility that GOP campaign professionals might not be as — or more — “bonkers”.

  52. Watching a political party die is ugly.

  53. And Libertarians are the bedrock of sanity.

  54. Megan makes a lot more sense than Peter.

  55. I am a registered Democrat (only to vote in the primaries, not because I necessarily like the party), and certifiable nut job, according to my wife and associates. I will probably vote for Bernie, or, if he doesn’t win the primary, for whoever runs in the Green Party. But many things about Trump please me. I am very happy that he called out Jeb Bush on his brother’s culpability for 9/11, even though I don’t think he went far enough. I am also happy that he is willing to take Putin seriously and cooperate with him, rather than simply continue the horrendous Wolfowitz Doctrine. I am also happy that he seems to prefer healthy, organic food for everyone, not just himself. And, regarding qualifications – most qualified presidents seem to have been bought or threatened by organized crime and don’t represent the people, so not having political experience is a plus for more than just Republicans. So, do I think Republicans are crazy to think Trump could win the election? No, because there is support for him on both sides of the aisle. I think Republicans are crazy in general, but not for that.

    1. Yes. I did not read all the posts but high up in the thread people are saying there will be an anti-Trump turnout among Dems. Wrong. Dems love wealthy celebrities, flash, and drama. Trump has said many Lefty things in the past and those will be more publicized as the primaries go on. He will get Dem votes and others will stay home because they like him as well as or better than Hillary.

  56. We’re out of our minds with frustration of establishment politicians enriching themselves while lying about their intent.
    If Peter can’t understand which side of the bread the butter is on, perhaps he should keep his pie-hole shut.

  57. A significant minority feels that they’re being taken advantage of by an ‘elite’ and ‘others’ engendering a lack of faith in the government they feel is controlled by those elites and others; a political movement arises to promote those concerns and amplifies them back to its audience through friendly media outlets, stirring resentment to a fever pitch; the movement uses a minority within a democratic process to block the governing system, reinforcing the sense of crisis; a strong, outspoken leader with easy fixes and promises to restore all that has been lost (and a not-too subtle threat to eliminate the elites and outsiders) arises. That leader then uses the movement to overthrow the democratic process from within. The French Revolution, 1917 Russia, or the Weimar Republic ringing any bells?

    I really hope the Republican Party can restore itself to sanity (even if it splits) while promoting effective remedies to the concerns of all Americans. If they don’t, will I have to explain to my children what the USA was like before the local militias rose up with their private arsenals and intimidated the ‘silent majority’ into ensuring that President Wingnut was installed as ‘President for Life Under God’, Congress united under ‘One Leader, One Party, One Nation’, and the Supreme Court dedicated to rooting out the liberties that promote vice and national indiscipline? Don’t think it can happen? Neither did the people deriding the Jacobians, Bolsheviks, or NDSP.

  58. Clearly, Americans will vote for anyone who says what they want to hear, regardless of whether he knows what they’re doing. Two terms for Obama who was nothing but a minion of the Daley machine. It’s hard for me to imagine a Trump presidency, but clearly he knows what he’s doing, and that’s a refreshing change.

    1. When George W. Bush ran, his campaign ads bragged about his plan for education: Restoring local control, setting high standards…

      just what the ignorant masses want to hear. Two things that contradict each other. Just like City Hall spending money to protect residential property values and spending money to ensure housing is more affordable.

  59. If you voted against the Libertarians, it’s your fault they didn’t win. You’re just as guilty as the ignorant masses are.

  60. So, Republicans are stupid and yet they get tens of millions more votes than Libertarians. What is that telling you Libertarians?

    You should all vote for Hillary. That way you can vote for the person furthest from any Libertarian principles as possible, thus showing how smart you are.

    Do I like Trump? No. Would I vote for him over Hillary? All day long and twice on Sunday. Like most people, I never get to vote for someone I actually like.

  61. No worse than Jerry Brown or Martin O’Malley etc.

  62. Suderman is a tool.

  63. I’m NOT a Trump fan. I think it’s likely that Trump’s candidacy is a deal to trash the RNC’s Presidential efforts during the primaries and wreck anyone Hillary’s team think they might lose to AND to bring out the “perfect for TV people on the Right” who scare the crap out of the gen. public and insure Hillary wins. Thanks to how well the media is playing this … its working, too.

    BUT … there’s something else here I think no one has really examined talking about the Repub base. Trump is getting support because they can’t really say what they want to say. Saying out loud what almost every REAL Conservative type that I know of really wants (it involves pretty much EVERYONE in Washington DC = pols, judges, bureaucrats, pundits, the media, the lobbyists, etc) … would be to get yourself on an NSA watchlist. Exactly what those new bureaucracies that Obama is putting into place are designed to track and deal with.

    So … people are left to vent their anger (and hopes for change) thru a mess like Trump because they do NOT have the FREEDOM to publicly opine about or even the slightest hope about actually dealing with the issues that they are most interested solving in any manner that is acceptable to them.

    Anything else aside from rooting for Anti-DC types like Trump gets them a visit by Homeland Security.

    From the Right, Trump is just a vehicle for **telling the entire DC crowd ** that the Right thinks that the country would be better off if they were ALL … displaced.

  64. Why do I keep seeing the word “Electable” being bandied about here? Yeah, I know it’s a horse race and the populace only seems concerned with who the prettiest pony is, but why (on what is supposed to be a libertarian website) would anyone want to keep perpetuating that? “Electable” is just another way of saying I’m too lazy to think for myself.

  65. Suderman is a disgrace… All you have to do is read a few of his columns and you figure out he hates anyone that is Republican or conservative.

    I guess he is a member of the Socialist Party of America (AKA: The Democratic Party) and is trying to convince Libertarians that they have nothing in common with the ANYONE in the GOP.

    Funny thing is, most libertarians I know actually pay attention and have read a book or two?

  66. Trump and Carson are the only candidates with any sort of pulse. Bush, Rand, Huck and Santorum are likely toast. Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina are floundering dark horse candidates.

    The Republican voters usually flock towards candidates they feel is most electable. That’s why (despite conservative and libertarian objections) the likes of Romney and Mccain won the nomination. Safe, whitebread, moderate, military and / or business background. Ron Paul and Gingrich made some noise a few states and was never heard from again.

    So this is nothing new.

  67. Is he broke? Is he dead from an overdose? No, but he turned that million and even those failed ventures into a pretty uncommon success. That is not easy, which was exactly his and my point. Anybody here think they could do that? What are you waiting for? I suspect that the Donald just didn’t feel that poverty or even mediocrity was his calling.

    moschino purse

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.