There's a terminal case of Trump denial syndrome around here.

[Oakvale]

He's been the frontrunner for months now and shows no sign of "collapsing" as the brainless pundits keep insisting is going to happen any day now. Unfortunately I see the same attitude around here. "Trump cannot win!" Well, why not? "He cannot!"

Like Mitt Romney, Trump has maintained a consistent lead while various challengers rise and fall. Unlike Romney, Trump is charismatic and objectively the best candidate running - and would make the best President -  of anyone on the Republican side.

Some of you need to realise that America's about to get a lot classier. Embrace it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Gold-plated toilets for everyone!!!

[Oakvale]

Gold-plated toilets for everyone!!!

It's gonna be yuge, folks. We love gold, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

538 needs to have him immediately crash and burn to reclaim any credibility they once had.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

538 needs to have him immediately crash and burn to reclaim any credibility they once had.

538 was also the same site that said Bernie's momentum was over, literally the day before he began leading in his first poll for a state that wasn't his own.

[Mr. Morden]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All the endorsements in the world don't matter if the actual electorate refuses to vote for you. And this electorate is one that (currently) wants new, corruption-free blood in Washington that will actually get things done. And it's difficult to see them bowing down to Bush unless he fundamentally changes his strategy.

Also, keep in mind that the number of endorsements given out so far is less than the number given out at this point in 2012.

[Mr. Morden]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All the endorsements in the world don't matter if the actual electorate refuses to vote for you. And this electorate is one that (currently) wants new, corruption-free blood in Washington that will actually get things done. And it's difficult to see them bowing down to Bush unless he fundamentally changes his strategy.

Also, keep in mind that the number of endorsements given out so far is less than the number given out at this point in 2012.

To be honest, I’m not that high on Bush either.  If I had to bet right now, I guess I’d go Rubio, but it’s wide open, and everyone’s well under 50% likelihood of winning the nomination.

I realize that there haven’t been that many endorsements.  My point is that it’s another indicator.  Just like polling is an indicator.  Why does polling trump (ha ha) all else in determining who is “winning” at this early stage?  No votes have been cast yet, and we are a long way off from votes being cast.  So we are relying on all of these imperfect indicators, but I don’t see polling as being the end all be all of the standings.  The media might say “Derp de doo, so-and-so is `winning’ because they have better poll numbers right now.  I guess they’re the frontrunner”, but there’s no reason we have to stick with analysis that simplistic here.

[eric82oslo]

How do you spell Trump again oakvale? Was it C-A-R-S-O-N. Correct me if I got any letter wrong, okey?

(Carson has twice the support of Trump now in Iowa if you count second choices too. )

[weixiaobao]

I think Trump going down in Iowa is a good thing for Trump.  He needs to figure out his Achilles' hill now to able to move forward.  If Gingrich has 2 chances, then Trump should be even better than Gingrich.  Beside people making it sounds like Iowa = national polls.

Trump has a chance of winning.  But he need to broaden his base. 

I don't think he should tone it down.  But he need to be aware of what his supporters will and won't be tolerating.  He have been pushing it close to the edge with the anti Afghanistan war and his initial Syrian refugee comments.

[Torie]

The reason it's so open is all of the candidates have their weaknesses, so it's hard to know how things will play out. If Carson were more facile, and sensible, on the issues, and really projected he would be competent as POTUS, it might be reasonable to predict he would win the nomination for example. But alas, well, whatever. So we need to be patient and see who mitigates their problems best.  For Jeb, there is no evidence so far he has the slightest ability to do that at all, so thus his chances are fading. But maybe he will have an epiphany.

[The Mikado]

Since Mr. Morden brought up endorsements, I thought it'd be fun to point out that Marco Rubio has been in the U.S. Senate since 2011 and doesn't have the endorsement of a single other Senator, which might not reflect well on his colleagues' thoughts of him. Cruz doesn't have any Senatorial endorsements either, but his whole gimmick is the "least popular man in Washington" routine so I'm giving him a pass on that.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Senate elections in OH, FL, Pa & Ma-NH; NV-MO look very similar to 2012 in which Romney lost in a landslide to Obama. Same with Clinton-Trump. Running a bankrupt CEO who wants to blow a hole in deficit with corPorate and estates tax repeal. I doubt Trump or Carson will be elected.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's terminal?? Oh dear. RIP Atlas.

[The Other Castro]

To be honest, I think I've been too quick in the past in judging Trump as closer to a flavor of the month than a phenomenon. Recently, I've realized he's more than that, and has an actual chance, if not a good chance, at becoming the nominee. While I'm still confident he would never win a general election, I believe Trump is now at worst the 4th most likely Republican nominee.

[Fuzzy Bear]

More Trump Denial threads.  Amusing to view them today.  Maybe they can be combined.  It's mandatory reading for folks who think Trump can't win a second term.

[°Leprechaun]

More Trump Denial threads.  Amusing to view them today.  Maybe they can be combined.  It's mandatory reading for folks who think Trump can't win a second term.

Whether or not he wins in 2020 depends entirely on whom the Democrats nominate (unfortunately).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL at the endorsement point system. Trump probably had fewer endorsement points in the general election than Hillary had in the primary.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhooooooooo we fricking did it man!

[Mr. Morden]

More Trump Denial threads.  Amusing to view them today.  Maybe they can be combined.  It's mandatory reading for folks who think Trump can't win a second term.

I definitely think he can win a second term.  I thought he could win a first term, though yeah, like nearly everyone else, I considered him the underdog in last year's GE.  But I was a big skeptic of him winning the nomination for a long time, and was wrong about that.

That said, one thing I was right about was how most of the #NeverTrump Republican politicians would stick to their guns.  Very few of those who said they wouldn't endorse him in the general election ended up flip-flopping on that.  (Some did, but not many.)  Yet many folks kept insisting that many of them would fold any day.  E.g., about one year ago at this time:

I expect Murkowski, Lee, and Flake to say, in the end, that they are voting for Trump.  I don't expect them to campaign for him, but they'll give that much of an "endorsement".  Trust me.

Suffice it to say, none of them ended up endorsing him in the end.  (Lee said he voted McMullin, and I'm not sure if the other two ever ended up saying who they voted for.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

More Trump Denial threads.  Amusing to view them today.  Maybe they can be combined.  It's mandatory reading for folks who think Trump can't win a second term.

I definitely think he can win a second term.  I thought he could win a first term, though yeah, like nearly everyone else, I considered him the underdog in last year's GE.  But I was a big skeptic of him winning the nomination for a long time, and was wrong about that.

That said, one thing I was right about was how most of the #NeverTrump Republican politicians would stick to their guns.  Very few of those who said they wouldn't endorse him in the general election ended up flip-flopping on that.  (Some did, but not many.)  Yet many folks kept insisting that many of them would fold any day.  E.g., about one year ago at this time:

I expect Murkowski, Lee, and Flake to say, in the end, that they are voting for Trump.  I don't expect them to campaign for him, but they'll give that much of an "endorsement".  Trust me.

Suffice it to say, none of them ended up endorsing him in the end.  (Lee said he voted McMullin, and I'm not sure if the other two ever ended up saying who they voted for.)

Did more Democratic Governors, Senators, and Congressman not vote for McGovern in 1972.  Or did more GOP Governors, Senators, and Congressmen not vote for Trump in 2016?

[Mr. Morden]

Did more Democratic Governors, Senators, and Congressman not vote for McGovern in 1972.  Or did more GOP Governors, Senators, and Congressmen not vote for Trump in 2016?

No idea.  I wasn't alive in 1972, and so wasn't keeping track of who was endorsing McGovern. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Did more Democratic Governors, Senators, and Congressman not vote for McGovern in 1972.  Or did more GOP Governors, Senators, and Congressmen not vote for Trump in 2016?

No idea.  I wasn't alive in 1972, and so wasn't keeping track of who was endorsing McGovern. 

It's a sign of a Presidential loser when his/her ticket runs away from him/her.  A number of Republican Governors, Senators, and Representatives refused to endorse Goldwater in 1964; this was countered a bit by large numbers of Southern Democrats that refused to endorse LBJ (with some openly endorsing Goldwater).  In 1972, a number of elected Democrats refused to endorse McGovern, citing policy differences, and many Democrats did their utmost to avoid being tied to the national ticket. 

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

[SamTilden2020]

In defense of this thread, virtually Everyone thought Trump's run was a joke, so this gives off little surprise.

Additionally (to the Trumpites who laugh at this thread), thinking Trump will win reelection because no one thought he would win reelection is simply poor projecting (It ultimately depends on the Dem nominee/what their electoral strategy might be).

[Mr. Morden]

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.