The latest Rasmussen. Put me with “someone else” (particularly given that I don’t vote in a swing state).
As I’ve been saying on Twitter for months, my concern with a Trump/Clinton match up isn’t that Clinton will win, but that one of them will, and both are terrible. I’d like to see a poll with some specific names (e.g., Cruz, Ryan, Mattis, Gary Johnson) as “other.”
Trump leads 48% to 35% among men but trails Clinton by a similar 44% to 34% among women.
What?? Clinton is weaker with men than Trump is with women? Wow.
But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats
This is going to keep Pepto-Bismol sales sky high among the Clinton people.
particularly given that I don’t vote in a swing state
I wouldn’t get too comfortable with that release-card. Some of the numbers in that link are really startling. Compared to past elections, you may find things upside-down come November. I imagine there will be more than a few Californians who will have visions of people waving Mexican flags atop traffic lights when they enter the voting booth.
I’m not a California voter.
Sorry, my mistake.
What?? Clinton is weaker with men than Trump is with women? Wow.
Being a jerk has never stopped a woman liking a man.
visions of people waving Mexican flags atop traffic lights when they enter the voting booth.
The Democrats just out Hitlered Trump. Waving the Mexican flag, while burning the American flag, and beating the crap out of civilians, while rioting with cops is the perfect way to surrender the moral high ground.
“Trump said something mean!”
“You beat a guy bloody in the street…”
“Trump wants to kick illegal aliens out of the USA!”
“You want to kick Americans out of the USA…”
Hrmmm.
All this makes me wonder; which party will have the hardest time unifying for November? For the Democrats, there’s the Sanders/Clinton split. We don’t know for sure yet which one will be the nominee, but whichever it is, they’ll need to reach out to the other side. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have a route to a nominee other than Sanders or Clinton; Clinton gets the nomination, then gets indicted.
On the Republican side, it’s also going to be rough whether the nominee is Trump or Cruz. However, if it’s someone not named Trump or Cruz, “rough” becomes “impossible” with a landslide defeat the sure result in November.
As for Indiana… anyone have any opinions on whether it’s must-win for anyone? My futile attempt to read the tea leaves is that no matter how much Indiana is hyped as must win (regardless of for whom) that meme will change by Wednesday, because the media definitely does not want this race over (just like the one on the Democrat side, its good for ratings).
My guess as to the real effect of Indiana is that unless it’s a landslide for Trump or Cruz, it won’t matter change things all that much. If Cruz loses, he’ll press on on hopes of a contested convention. If Trump loses, he’ll press on in hopes of reaching 1237. If Kasich loses, he’ll press on in hopes of… a second state named Ohio?
At some point before the convention, Cruz’s hope for a contested one evaporates if Trump even gets close to 1237. An Indiana loss makes that day come much sooner.
Very true. As the race stands now, Trump’s delegate count (including those unpledged but who have said they will vote for him) means he’s at about 1000, and needs about 47% of the remaining delegates. A win in Indiana would reduce that percentage.
However, I’m betting that even if Trump wins big in Indiana, the media will still talk up Cruz’s chances and talk down Trump’s, because the media benefits from a horserace (real or not).
I’ve become rather cynical over “must win states” this primary season; it seems like almost every Tuesday has one or more.
This is disappointing.
The Rubio people hated Cruz so much they went to Trump and Kasich. I figured they would break Trump/Cruz. I don’t get the #NeverCruz sentiment being stronger than the #NeverTrump, especially how the Rubio supporters were treating Trump.
” my concern with a Trump/Clinton match up isn’t that Clinton will win, but that one of them will, and both are terrible”
Bah. One of them hates this country, the other one doesn’t. In the absence of a better choice, that’ll do.
One of them hates this country, the other one doesn’t. In the absence of a better choice, that’ll do.
Even if I knew whether or not Trump “doesn’t hate this country,” it doesn’t mean he’d be a good president.
Nor does it mean he’s a good man. Nor does it mean he has the best interests of his country at heart.
In these regards, he’s the same blank slate that Obama was in 2008, and people are writing their own wishes on the slate..same as 2008.
And like 2008, the rest of us know what a disaster Trump would be.
This has a grain of truth to it, however the comparison has a yuuuge flaw. Nobody to this day knows who Obama really is. What were his marks in university? Papers he wrote? Does his application show he was applying as a foreign student?
In contrast, Trump has been in the public eye for thirty years, and in the last decade or so on TV regularly just being himself. This is the first time he’s ever run for any office of any kind, but he’s been thoroughly vetted already. There’s no October Surprise waiting, because the trash magazines have been at him for decades.
” Nobody to this day knows who Obama really is.”
I disagree with your flaw because I think we very well know Obama. We know what he’ll do and what he’ll say and what he won’t do.
It no longer matters what his grades were or if he got into college by lying. If we found that out before an election it could have mattered a lot. If we found out during his first term it would have helped curb his egregious behavior. If we found out after the 2012 election it could have destroyed his term – which would have been great.
But finding out now? He’s leaving office in less than a year and is pretty much a lame duck.
If anything makes me leery of Trump, it’s Trump’s supporters. They seem indifferent, at best, to the cause of liberty, instead pushing the cause of “America’s greatness.” It’s liberty that has made America great, Eloi. The ones I’ve debated on line about this just let the question slide. Plus we have “Uncle John” Boehner , faithful ennabler of the Plantation, backing Trump over Cruz, which tells you something.
Rand, You are not as smart as I thought. You absolutely cannot grasp hold of reality. We are very lucky to have Trump run. He is going to win. You are part of the supposed “Upper Crust” of our pussy-whipped country. I’m not sure I can continue to visit your site after this. Disappointing.
Sad!
Hey Jared, Bilwick, in the comment right above yours, says that Trump supporters “seem indifferent, at best, to the cause of liberty”. Instead of insulting our country and insulting Rand, could you speak to Bilwick’s concern?
Trump said “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected”
Jared, do you think that’s a good idea to change existing libel laws to make it easier for politicians to sue newspapers who write about them?
If you don’t want to talk about that, maybe you could at least say something about why Trump is your preferred candidate, because, so far, you haven’t.
Looking at the Indiana results it seems really unlikely that Trump won’t win the Republican nomination.
Some commentators over here are suggesting that Trump will be able to catch a big slice of the Sanders voters, on the basis that many of them are supporting Sanders as an alternative to the Clinton establishment.
Current law seems to be working out for the Hulkster right now.
Hogan didn’t sue based on libel (and if he did, he would have lost in minutes). He sued based on privacy law.
Good point. Maybe Romney should have hired his lawyers.
I think making newspapers prove that their reports about politicians are factual is a GREAT idea… and will do serious damage to the Democratic Party and its unofficial propaganda machine. Why, the cases G.Dub alone could have won would have taken billions out of the DNC’s ‘free advertising’ coffers.
Bob1,
In response, Trump has shown success in life. Real life, not politics life. I agree with most of his positions, and if you watch him speak, he uses something called Humor when talking about all these hot button issues to get laughs from the crowd. As many comedians will tell you, humor is sorely missing in our country today. People can’t recognize it. There are many people who might be better than Trump, but they aren’t running. It’s him or Hillary, which is no choice. Have you researched how everybody hates Ted Cruz? Everyone who has ever known him hates him. The reality of the situation is this: Trump is a good guy. People who can’t see this are delusional, in my opinion.
Trump’s “success” is severely marred if you look into it.
Plus success as a community organizer or as a businessman does not automatically translate into success as a President.
Failure as a businessman doesn’t necessarily mean you’d be a bad president either, but it’s considered indicative.
The question is, in balance, will things get better or worse? Obama is a typical leftist America hater (actions speak louder than words and his words are bad enough.) Trump loves America in an old fashioned way, doesn’t apologize for America and will fight for fairness in international relationships (his tactics may need adjustments but his strategy is to be on our side.)
All he needs is support from others that love America so the leftist America haters can crawl back into the shadows again.
May the fourth be with you!
How Trump will perform in government is unknown but we know how Hillary will, terrible.
Thank you for your opinion.
humor is sorely missing in our country today.
Hmm, Obama uses plenty of humor. He just directs it at different people than Trump. Trump is a lot like Obama.
Rand,
Your one word response to my critical comment is what I would expect from a non-rational person. Since I have always thought you had some logical thinking, it is very disappointing to hear you so irrational, like others, about the Trump phenomenon.
I think Rand was satirizing Trump’s one word exclamatory tweets. Think about that.
I get it. The thing is, it’s Hillary or Trump. Trump is much better than McCain or Romney, IMO. I hated both of them. I don’t hate Trump. I like him, he gives me more hope than I’ve had in years. I’m angry. After Obama in ’08, and then in ’12. I’ve been turning away friends who voted for him. I’m not willing to compromise any more in my old age (not quite 50). I’m starting to more forcefully speak my mind, thinking that it’s what needs to be done to stop this rot. By the way, this is the first time I’ve ever commented on a Blog. This blog I have followed for over 10 years. I’m interested in space, and Rand’s politics were close to mine until now. That’s why I’m disappointed. Take care.
Consider the possibility that some people have different visceral reactions to him than you do, and that it doesn’t make us “irrational.”
You are right, my comments were over the top. I just enjoy your blog, and I haven’t been able to read it lately without getting pissed off because of your hatred of Trump. I will agree to disagree. Can’t wait till the election is over. Have a good one Rand.
I don’t hate Trump. I just think he’s a con man who would be a disaster as president, and who has perhaps guaranteed the election of Hillary, if she’s the nominee.
I’ll bet you a beer he wins. I live in Tampa area.