Who's your money on?Follow

I think we just witnessed a field reporter lose his job.
Spoiler

Not sure what "could" win really means in this context though. Honestly though, I've been operating on the assumption that most of his support is coming from outside the traditional GOP voters. Which at least seemed to be supported by his own statement in the last debate about how he's "bringing people into the party". Which... Um.... Doesn't mean he's actually bringing people *into* the party so much as bringing people from outside the party into the primaries. Here's the thing though. If that's correct, then he should not do so well in primaries that are larger in number, closed, and held on the same day as the Dem primaries in the same state (although even that may not hold water given how, Sanders fanatics aside, Clinton is actually running more or less unopposed).

Polling indicates this isn't true though. I hope it is, but if I'm wrong, then his support isn't just some mirage effect from smallish states with lots of independent voters relative to the number of "regular" primary voters tipping the apple cart for the GOP, but an actual wave of anti-establishment voters, pissed off at both parties for the grid lock of the last 7 years, latching onto Trump, irrationally or not, as a means to "fix it". I've been watching in disbelief as he continues to say things that are ridiculously stupid, paper thin, and obviously just empty emotional rhetoric. Yet, he continues to poll high, and has improved over time.

Here's the thing. If I am wrong about this, then he will win the GOP nomination, and he does actually stand a strong chance of beating Clinton in the general. Because there's more or less no one in the race who isn't more representative of the establishment than Clinton. If Trumps BS is working so well against both Rubio and Cruz, both Tea Party candidates themselves, and among GOP voters who usually shy away from the truly nutty folks (we're not called "conservatives" for nothing), it's likely that he may do even better in the general. Not among the rank and file folks the Dems normally rely on as their voting poll, but among what may be a very large segment of independent voters, who may not care much at all about our normal right/left voting patterns, and will lean heavily in his direction. And if his wave of support is loud enough, and big enough, it's not going to matter what negatives are thrown at him.

I'm not voting for him, no matter what. My principles really do mean more to me than party loyalty, despite what some here may think. But if I were a liberal Democrat, I'd be a bit cautious laughing it up about Trump beating the more traditional GOP candidates in this race. Because if you think that means an easy victory in November, you might recall that this was the same assumption made in the GOP 6 months or so ago about Trump's chances. If he wins the nomination, and in late summer you guys are tearing your hair out wondering how on earth he could actually be polling so well against the clearly superior Clinton, I'll maybe refrain from laughing at you (maybe). But I'll have a nice big chug of scotch or something, and just hope the whole thing doesn't cause too much damage in the long run.

There's a saying about tigers and tails. I think it might apply here.

Wait, what? New Hampshire was weeks ago. Super Tuesday is tomorrow.

Do you mean immediately after? I'm not giving you shit, I'm just trying to get your point.

Edited, Feb 29th 2016 7:14pm by Jophiel

Yes, I meant immediately after. I apologize for not clarifying, but given that NH was weeks ago, I thought it would be inferred.

The good news is you don't need to compromise them. Bill Watterson is truly a fount of wisdom.

She could but, again, it won't be for lack of effort which was a big part of the GOP's problem. It's tough to compare numbers (the GOP was bemoaning lack of enthusiasm in 2012; Clinton seems a lock this year lowering voter interest) but I won't deny that Trump is getting big crowds and sizable vote tallies.

Hey, you leave Robert Paulsen alone.

Your definition of realistic is loosening.

The "nine meatloafs" comment was a crack about how bland and boring most of their candidates were. Thus, I wasn't saying that the Dems put out the same quantity of candidates, just the same quality. Mostly, I was just calling Hillary a meatloaf.

I'm actually caught up in stuff at work today so I'm forced to satisfy my primary day excitement with Twitter.

Nice thing about today is most primary states are Eastern or Central time zones so it shouldn't be that late of a night.

Not at all, because the Nevada and South Carolina wins stopped the gained momentum, which is the point. What did he do with his funded money? Campaign in the low delegated states that he was close in polling.

More importantly, I can't find a decent county results map for Virginia