2016 Election • American Conservatism • Conservatives • Cultural Marxism • Greatness Agenda

Seven Degrees of Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg on Fox News Channel

Jonah Goldberg has—if my memory is correct—responded at length to my writings six times, in his National Review columns and in the Corner. And only once in direct reply to something I wrote about him (which was only to respond to something he wrote about me, when I hadn’t mentioned him). Now he’s back for the seventh, in which he talks about how irrelevant and not worth refuting I am.

A point of housekeeping before the main event. Goldberg, once again, calls me a coward for using a pseudonym. This is not a new charge—not for him, and not for legions of critics, many of whom are now clucking about it anew, thanks to Goldberg’s dredging it up again. I addressed this in my first, and still longest and most comprehensive, response to criticisms of the “Flight 93” essay. To my knowledge, no one has even noted what I said, much less tried to refute it. Rather than repeating it, let me just say that—whether you really think I’m a coward or whether it just makes you feel better to say so—my conscience is clear on this point.

I actually agree with Goldberg’s larger point: I’m irrelevant—to him, to all of Conservatism, Inc., and to the Republican Party, insofar as the party remains in the hands of those who now control it. I am under absolutely no illusion that I can persuade any of them of anything. My audience—to the extent that I have one—is the people whom I believe conservatism has led in unproductive directions and who now realize that the movement no longer speaks to or for them. I think I understand the truth of our situation better than conservatism does (obviously, or else I wouldn’t be writing at all). If I can use that understanding to improve others’ understanding and persuade them to move in productive directions, then I feel I ought to try. I may fail. Given the corruptness of the times, the difficulty of the task, and my own limitations, it’s quite likely that I will fail. Yet still I feel I ought to try.

Comprehensive Conservative Failure

If I may address professional conservatives directly: It seems to me undeniable that you have already failed. Don’t take it personally. I can rephrase that as “we” if you like, even though I was never much of an operative within Conservatism, Inc. But I was a fellow traveler and supporter, so if you want to lay part of the blame on me, fine.

We failed. We didn’t do what we set out to do. We lost the political and culture wars decisively. Our economic victory turned out to be fruitless: all the gains have accrued to those we nominally “defeated,” as evidenced by the fact that the Democrats are now the party of the super-rich. Our victory in the Cold War also turned to ashes, as we lost our heads pursuing unrealizable foreign ambitions while fighting in ways that preclude the possibility of victory. Not that we know what victory entails or have any idea what to do with it if we achieve it—but that doesn’t matter, because since 1991, we never have. Worse, we were crushed in the war of ideas:

It would not be the first time that a nation, defeated on the battlefield and, as it were, annihilated as a political being, has deprived the conquerors of the most sublime fruit of victory by imposing on them the yoke of its own thought.

You don’t have to be alt-right to see that this is a perfect description of the USSR’s posthumous intellectual victory in the form of “Cultural Marxism.” Climb down from the egghead mountaintops and the defeat becomes even clearer. A principal Soviet export was crude anti-Americanism—grounded in high theory, to be sure, but simplified to be understandable by even the meanest capacities. We “won” the Cold War, but that export nonetheless spread like a virus—so much so that anti-Americanism is now and has been for at least 20 years the civil religion not just of all Third World populations, not just of Western allies, but of American elites and their foot soldiers.

We failed to preserve a true understanding the principles of the Declaration of Independence. We failed to preserve the proper working order of the Constitution. We failed to protect and nurture that virtue in the people necessary to sustain the Constitution. We failed to defend the family from relentless assault. We failed to maintain any semblance of a shared public morality. We allowed—through a combination of active cheering and ineffective opposition—demographic and cultural replacement. We lent a great deal of our talent to serve rapacious interests in the name of “economic freedom.” All the things we were supposed to conserve—the nation, its people, its way of life, its governing structure—we have not conserved.

Alliances Coming Apart

This all seems irrefutably clear to me. Yet official conservatism says I am insane for saying so. So I ask: what do we have in common anymore?

I add “anymore” in frank acknowledgment that we used to have much. I’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg for almost 20 years. For most of that time, I thought we were on the same side, broadly speaking. And we still are, on many secondary things: most policy issues, the badness of the left, the greatness of “Star Trek” and “The Simpsons.” But on the really big things—the existential regime questions—we now appear to be light-years apart. Which, if true, makes all those subsidiary agreements kind of irrelevant. Perhaps that explains why, despite all that vast agreement, Goldberg attacks me so vociferously: because he suspects, as I do, that our fundamental differences are now greater than our similarities. That doesn’t fully explain why he bothers to come after me—there are plenty with whom he disagrees even more who might as well not exist in Goldberg’s world. But it does partly explain it.

I’ll mention one other big-name conservative intellectual, because he recently took after me, too. I’ve been reading Charles Murray longer than I’ve been reading Goldberg. I consider him the world’s greatest living social scientist—a title he assumed, in my view, on the passing of James Q. Wilson. For a nobody like me, it’s immensely gratifying to be on the receiving end of a snark-tweet from the author of Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart. Why is someone of his stature even deigning to insult me? I think Murray’s response to the present political circumstance is imprudent. Nonetheless, I still read him because wisdom is rare and one must grab it where and when it appears. I have no expectation whatever that Murray’s research will be negatively colored by what I consider his political errors. I’m certain I can still learn from him. He’s quite certain he has nothing to learn from me. He should therefore not waste any more time on me, but instead to keep on with studies from which I and thousands of others will profit.

Goldberg’s Mischaracterizations

Now I’m going to turn to Goldberg in greater detail. He explicitly disclaims any attempt to “rebut [my] points case by case.” I forswear his example—not, again, to persuade him (I know that’s impossible) but in an attempt to clarify certain points to those, like me, who used to be persuaded by him but these days feel they need another guide.

Goldberg’s mischaracterizations begin, as it were, at the beginning. He accuses those at the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College of living in bubbles. He doesn’t offer an argument. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. But if he’s right, at the very least, he would have to acknowledge that those are very different bubbles than the “Beltway Bubble” (not a term I have used) Goldberg admits he inhabits. Perhaps the latter bubble has something to learn from the former? It’s not like the three have equal say. Conservatism, Inc. is overwhelmingly located within the Beltway, where—by dint of its wealth, personnel, and access to big media and powerful politicians—it simply drowns out conservative voices from elsewhere. Calling a little college in rural Michigan, and a little think tank in the inland reaches of the Southern California megalopolis, “bubbles” may be true (though I think it isn’t) but hardly exonerates the big Beltway Bubble for its manifest failures.

Goldberg proceeds, once again, to mischaracterize my argument. According to Goldberg, I said that “this election poses an existential threat to America’s survival. Either we charge the cockpit and vote for Trump, or the figurative terrorists of the Clinton cabal kill us all.”

What I actually said was that this election poses an existential threat to America’s survival as a constitutional republic. I didn’t say that Clinton will “kill us all.” Though, for the record, I do think she and her administration will be a lot more punitive and vindictive against those she perceives as her enemies (e.g., all of us) than most conservatives suppose. But here’s exactly what I said:

If Hillary wins, there will still be a country, in the sense of a geographic territory with a people, a government, and various institutions. Things will mostly look the same, just as—outwardly—Rome changed little on the ascension of Augustus. It will not be tyranny or Caesarism—not yet. But it will represent, in my view, an irreversible triumph for the administrative state. Consider that no president has been denied reelection since 1992. If we can’t beat the Democrats now, what makes anyone think we could in 2020, when they will have all the advantages of incumbency plus four more years of demographic change in their favor? And if we can’t win in 2016 or 2020, what reason is there to hope for 2024? Will the electorate be more Republican? More conservative? Will constitutional norms be stronger?

Many anti-Trump conservatives dispute this argument with vague generalities about a coming conservative resurgence. But none has even attempted to refute the specifics. Goldberg certainly doesn’t—as noted, he says my arguments are unworthy of response. Not unworthy of writing about seven times. Just unworthy of responding to in detail.

I may have made the argument first (though I’m not claiming I did), but others have made versions of it since—including current and former National Review writers Victor Davis Hanson, John O’Sullivan, Conrad Black, and Mark Steyn. Even the eminently respectable Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in detail about the grave dangers of a Hillary presidency—admittedly, without concluding that Trump is superior.  But their case is rather more in support of my thesis than against it. Yet Goldberg singles out only me for opprobrium.

At any rate, I’m on the record with a prediction. It will come true or it won’t. If it doesn’t, Goldberg and (many) others will doubtless cackle that they told me so. And I promise to take it in more than good humor—considering that, first of all, I will have been wrong and thus will have it coming. Second, and much more important: I will be overjoyed at having been wrong, relieved that what I most feared did not come to pass.

We’ll see.

Conservatives for Bourbonism (Not the Kentucky Variety)

Goldberg continues by expressing outrage at my musings on motive. There’s no question in my mind that America is ruled by a bipartisan elite that agrees on the sanctity of open borders, free trade and carried interest. Goldberg doesn’t dispute that here—or anywhere, so far as I have noticed. He’s more incensed over what he thinks I said about Conservatism, Inc. But he gets this wrong too. It’s true that I think the donor class, the top pols, and the think-tank elite are motivated at least in part by money and status. I don’t think, and didn’t say, that rank-and-file Hill staffers, research assistants, talking-point-drafters, op-ed writers, and bloggers are so motivated.

The truth is much sadder. Because of their lack of education (despite, in many cases, elite diplomas), they believe checklist conservatism to be the last word on political wisdom. They know nothing of prudence, higher ends, the good, or the necessity of tacking and trimming. They just see deviations as heresy. They are encouraged to do so by an elite which manipulates them for its own ends. What can be more useful to an oligarchy than to send the talented but uneducated and un- or underpaid youth against the barricades on its behalf? Take on six-figure student debt, get an internship somewhere on Massachusetts Ave., and get out there to defend the carried interest loophole. While the billionaires who benefit from that loophole pay you either nothing or minimum wage. But your stance is principled! Low taxes! You’re a warrior for truth!

Conservative opposition to Communism and socialism degenerated into a defense of Bourbonism. Is it a coincidence that the street address of AEI’s new office is 1789? It is surely not a coincidence that the building was the most lavish apartment house ever erected in Washington. Now it houses, among others, James Pethokoukis, a premier “conservative” apologist for liberal, Davoisie capital and wealth concentration. Goldberg is angry that I recently attacked Pethokoukis, but the best he musters in rebuttal is to point out a discrepancy between “a” and “the.” OK, I acknowledge the distinction and apologize for my carelessness. But what earthly difference does it make? My point was that so-called “conservative cases” for liberal things—whether preceded by definite or indefinite articles—always constitute accommodations to the Left. As it did in the case of Pethokoukis’s article, which appeared on the left-leaning “explainer” site, Vox.com. Goldberg, needless to say, does not address that point at all.

More Mischaracterizations

Goldberg then puts the following words in my mouth: “if you disagree with [me] about Trump, you’re a sell-out in favor of destroying America.” No. What I said was that we face a binary choice. To be a conservative or a Republican and to sit it out, or to criticize Trump, is in this circumstance to favor Hillary. That’s just a fact. Trump is the underdog and needs all the help he can get. Every defection or abandonment hurts him and makes it more likely that she will win. If she wins, she will be a disaster for the right and for the country—on precisely the terms that Goldberg and so many others have always said she would. I therefore find it mind boggling that they could do anything, however slight, that might help her win.

But they are. Would that the consequences would fall only on them. But they will fall on all of us—and the flyover rubes first, and hardest. Indeed, if a third Clinton administration differentiates among its enemies at all, it will wait to eat last all those “conservatives” who helped Hillary by damaging Trump. I’m not saying that was a conscious motivation for their opposition. But it may prove to be a perk.

Goldberg objects to my “apocalyptic despair,” despite—and without mentioning—my repeated (admittedly, perhaps delusional) assertion that secure borders, economic nationalism, tight labor markets, trans-ethnic cohesion, and a reassertion of the consent of the governed might turn our dire situation around. The only candidate in this race—who was ever in this race—who supports that agenda in toto is Trump.

‘Weaponized Leftism’ on the Right

Goldberg especially objects to my saying that I am now an enemy of established conservatism. He declines to mention what prompted me to say that. Pethokoukis called me a racist not once, not twice, but three times in one article. As I argued then—and as Goldberg surely understands—this is, and is meant to be, the cruelest, most damning, most devastating thing one can say about anyone else in the current year. It is weaponized Leftism, now used all too casually, and eagerly, by the right against the right. If that’s what Pethokoukis thinks—if it’s what Goldberg thinks; and he implicitly defends Pethokoukis on this point—then what could I be but their enemy? Could they be friends or colleagues with Goebbels? Should I be expected to be intellectual or political compatriots with people who compare me to Nazis?

It’s been clear to me for some time that a plurality (at least) of conservatives would much rather call nominal allies “racist” for saying America needs to get serious about the border than actually see anyone get serious about the border. Pethokoukis is an open-borders homo economicus, so this makes sense in his case. But Goldberg—like many at NR—claims to be for restrictionist reform. And yet when the first presidential candidate in, basically, forever successfully raised the prospect of regaining control of the immigration debate and the border, Goldberg and NR came out against him. And not just in the primaries, but in the general. What’s more, they attack those of us who write in support of him.

Still more, when we supporters are called “racist” for advocating a position they themselves claim to hold, they amplify that smear and defend those making it. If one is willing to grant that Goldberg and his colleagues genuinely believe their stated position, one must then conclude that they don’t think it’s that important. Not more important, at any rate, than calling those to their right “racist” or defending those who do.

I think the border, citizenship, social cohesion, and policies that put Americans first are really, really important. To the extent that I am politically and/or intellectually engaged, it makes sense for me to arrange things so that my allies are people who agree with me. It certainly doesn’t make sense to be allied with people who disagree, or who claim to agree but countenance others’ slurs about a position we supposedly share.

But that is just to circle back to the beginning. It would appear that we just don’t agree on fundamentals any more. Doesn’t it? I’m open to a case that we do. I expect I’d have things to say in reply and rebuttal. But maybe we can find common ground after all.

Enough to be allies again? I don’t know. The only way to find out is to have a really big argument. Which will make a lot of people mad. The debate is actually already underway, and tempers are already high. I get the sense that Goldberg and most of his side just want people like me to go away. But even if I personally went away, the argument will continue. The Right will either reconcile on terms favorable to Trump’s issues or it will split. There will be no going back to the status quo ante. That’s another prediction.

739 replies
  1. BurkeanMama
    BurkeanMama says:

    Goldberg thinks Decius is irrelevant but Decius is living rent free in Goldberg’s head. He sound like Andrew Sullivan obsessing over Sarah Palin.

    • ishkabibble
      ishkabibble says:

      You’re right, he probably shouldn’t elevate Decius by acknowledging him. By the way, by the same measure HRC has been dwelling comfortably in the RW psyche for decades and lately she’s been joined by Saul Alinsky, who even barefoot Trump rallygoers know to be a thing.

    • BIGtimSullivan
      BIGtimSullivan says:

      Goldberg is small potatoes in this argument; a pawn on the chess board. I want to hear more from Decius about Charles Murray. THAT’S why Goldberg is out there bloviating about this constantly. He’s following the good Doctor’s orders.

  2. texan59
    texan59 says:

    If I may be so presumptuous, let me shorten this up for those who like to use the big fancy words. Maybe they will understand this. They won’t like it, but maybe they’ll understand it. We played by your rules. We followed your marching orders like the good soldiers we are, ever since 1988. You gave us “No new taxes”, “Compassionate Conservatism”, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. We gave you Newt and the republican revolution of 1994, 2010, and 2014. What did that bring us? Not much. In 2016, Donald J. Trump, who is not who I voted for, nor whom I wanted in this position, whipped sixteen other republicans. Fair and square. Every single one that you (the establishment) wanted dropped out early. Jeb, Perry, Christie, et al,. Cruz hung in until the bitter end, another one the GOPe couldn’t stand, yet you all have the temerity, and gall to tell us to shut up and let you take care of this “problem”. Screw you. At this point, I don’t care if the (your) whole apparatus burns to the ground. We heard from Boehner when we only had the House that they were ½ of ⅓ of the gov’t. and “what can they do”. Ryan is up there getting ready for a large obamacare induced chiropractor bill from getting whipsawed every other day. Mr. Sam must be laughing his ass off at you rank amateurs. I am not an “alt-right” wacko, nut-job. I have a college degree, live and work in a major metropolitan area, wear a suit and tie to work every day. with others just like me, who while we didn’t go the the fancy-pants east coast schools like y’all did, are being asked to “trust you” one more time. You guys are the ones who’ve screwed this whole thing up by begging us for our help and sticking the shiv in our backs. Bite me.

        • trangbang68
          trangbang68 says:

          I agree, besides if this turns into the debacle it appears, the GOP is dead. Maybe Hillary’s henchmen and co-religionists of the Leftist Death Cult will manage to shut down the think tanks and journals that employ hacks like Jonah and Kristol.

          • BIGtimSullivan
            BIGtimSullivan says:

            We don’t need Hillary to shut down the think tanks and journals that feed people like Goldberg & Kristol. WE are the ones that hold the keys. I cancelled an almost 30 year National Review subscription and a 10 year Weekly Standard one as well. These fools go on to Twitter to snark and insult their customers like the Left so I voted with my feet. The few writers that I still wish to hear from are all available online anyway. I was paying them out of loyalty and tradition. No more.

          • trangbang68
            trangbang68 says:

            Will the GOP be fine when the old bag opens the borders and amnesties several million new Dem voters by executive action

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            She won’t do that, most likely. If Obama (who is far more popular than Hillary) couldn’t do it, neither will she.

          • trangbang68
            trangbang68 says:

            Most likely…a little caveat there, Matt? The clintons are vindictive swine. If the old bag wins she’ll stand down the Border Patrol out of spite.If the Dems win this election, they’re coming hard after guns, the churches, the border, private pension funds, single payer insurance, Supreme Court packing, you name it. Who’s going to oppose them? Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions and nobody, that’s who. And you stooges will be sitting in the corner pointing your fingers elsewhere.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Trump attacked Ryan while he still had enough time to make a difference, and it didn’t make a dent in his support. What was his win? 70% or something greater?
            Whether Ryan survives depends on the next two years, not on what Trump says about him.

      • Kurt Ingalls
        Kurt Ingalls says:

        “Get out” really means only one thing……join the ranks of the uninformed (who do not know they are uniformed) and let them plow this great experiment into the ground. That’s what the famous quip “liberty or death” really meant….fight on to preserve civility or live a broke, violent, serf style life….a serf, you know what that is, Mr. Historybuff…..get comfortable, be a serf….be vigilant, be free…..that’s a sane world view, just look at government in an historical perspective and it’s cumulative relationship with their people; nothing but violence and destruction, Mr. Historybuff………that is exactly where our ruling class is headed….LOL….and you said “get out”…..amazing, just absolutely amazing……….. :-)

          • Party of Lincoln
            Party of Lincoln says:

            These people can’t be reasoned with, HB. They actually believe that a white nationalist party can thrive once again. Like Lost Causers, they can’t see what’s right before their very eyes.

            Donald Trump attempted to do what George Wallace couldn’t — resurrect John Calhoun and Stephen Douglas. But all he’s done is bury them, once and for all. For that every American should be eternally grateful.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Mr “Party of Lincoln”, you are reducing American politics to racial and assumed crypto-racial issues, like the quackademic Left.

            Observe:

            The Whigs died in the early 1850s and were briefly replaced by the American Party (Know-Nothings) who campaigned on opposition to immigration and free trade – basically militant Whigs. The GOP was founded in 1854 on a similar platform with added emphasis on opposition to slavery. Whereas the AP could garner around 40% of the vote in both North and South, the GOP was a sectional party. Nonetheless, its platform was nationalist.

            Although by corruption, its immigration plank was weakened on occasion (and restrengthened at other times), it maintained a protectionist worldview until about the 1960s.

            Calhoun was about little if not free trade. The Democratic Party was a free trading party right up until the New Deal, and even then still formally so. Wallace was a politician very much in the Jacksonian populist, perhaps even Bryanite agrarian populist, wing of the Southern Democrats, but by the late 20th century much of American industry had relocated to the South which permitted ex-Southern populists-turned-Republicans to become more perfect nationalists. In this sense, of course Trump took the Wallace vote, but it has little to do with Bourbon Democrats or extreme Jeffersonians like Calhoun.

            As for the Stephen Douglas legacy, it’s probably right here on NRO, if not voting for Gary Johnson.

            Neoconservatives always claim Lincoln, but they, as largely New Yorkers and especially atheistic Jews, only like his militant anti-South stance and use of militaristic imperialism. They don’t approve of the GOP’s wider policies and would have certainly been Democrats in 1858 just like they were right up through the 1970s.

            And as for us Lost Causers, I have several Confederate flags lying around. It’s part of my history and I won’t disavow it or make empty apologies for slavery. At the same time, I don’t believe in extreme states rights confederalist political theory and that’s obviously not Trump’s beliefs, either.

          • Party of Lincoln
            Party of Lincoln says:

            “…and I won’t disavow it (the Confederate glad) or make empty apologies for slavery. ”

            That pretty much says it all.

            Conservatives have much work to do now that Trump has nearly destroyed the Republican Party. Neoconfederates like you are welcome to stay or to leave — and if you leave don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

            But you and Decius are living in a fantasy world if you really believe that a Republican Party built on the foundation of Calhoun and Douglas has any chance of being relevant in the United States outside of obscure blogs like this.

            Those of us of a certain persuasion, that the founders and Lincoln were right, have a legacy to honor. We’ll vote for Trump as he is undeniably the lesser of the two evils on the November 2016 ballot, but we’re not going to dishonor Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln by honoring or elevating Trump as some kind of Lincoln reincarnation. Trump is a disgrace of a human being and a poison that has been injected into the Republican Party, ushering in the election of Hillary Clinton. Any attempt to honor Trump, as Decius has, only dishonors the founding principles of republic and its salvation by Lincoln and the Republicans of the 1860s.

          • jafco
            jafco says:

            You are a specious fool – exactly what Decius (and this is the first time I ever read him) – describes above. Sure, go ahead and appropriate leftist hate-mongering to beggar your would-be brethren. If you are what remains of the GOP – then you will be the Whigs of the 21st century. Good riddance to you.

          • Party of Lincoln
            Party of Lincoln says:

            The fool is the one who argued that Trump was the one true path to salvation for the republic. Trumpism is a disgrace to the republic and the extent of the humiliation of the Republican by Donald J. Trump will be written into the histories for a very long time.

            It now looks like Trump will lose Arizona, Georgia and Utah. He probably hangs onto Texas but at the rate he’s losing votes to Hillary she make just take it from him. Bill and Hillary couldn’t have picked a better candidate to run against than the moron from Manhattan.

            PT Barnum was right about suckers being born every minute, but what he didn’t know was that Baghdad Bobs are also born every minute.

          • Kurt Ingalls
            Kurt Ingalls says:

            No no no…..you don’t get it!!!!!! A “no vote” because your too stinking ignorant and scared counts as a vote to continue the charade….think outside the box, Mr. Historybuff, because Mr. Goldberg can not!!!!!!!

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            I think you evidently are a coward… that needs an adult to hold your hand in practice of being an American.

            You ever walked a neighborhood to support a candidate?
            HB

          • Kurt Ingalls
            Kurt Ingalls says:

            Now now, I agree, no call for all of this……but remember the relationship between the Tories and “rebels” in 1774…..they were english subjects, all of them…..and the original clarion call was to be treated fairly and AS BRITISH SUBJECTS!!!!!!!…..but the ruling class refused……and the rest, as they say, is history…………. :-)

    • jburack
      jburack says:

      “We” vs “You” – that’s really what it all comes down to, right? I don’t know you and you don’t know me. The notion of this great divide is the illusion of our age. Almost every faction in America sees it like you do and says it like you do. That’s the pathetic irony of all this. Decius is as mired in his sense of his perfect beleaguered victimhood and sense of betrayal as was that entitled college kid at Yale screaming in rage at the House master, for the audacity of being called a “master” or whatever it was about Halloween that justified her perfect beleaguered sense of betrayal. We are all walking around holding up in front of ourselves, not cell phones, but mirrors. Go look in yours, man. You say, “I don’t care if your whole apparatus burns to the ground.” About fifty years ago, H. Rapp Brown said the same thing. “Burn, baby, burn.” Another man walking around with a mirror in his face.

      • Richard_Reed
        Richard_Reed says:

        We are not “mired in victimhood.” We are burning with suppressed rage at the utter betrayal of our values and efforts by people we trusted.

      • Deplorable Me
        Deplorable Me says:

        The Progressives must always fight and sow division. The constitution, however, is a contract for unity. That is why they fight.

      • Kurt Ingalls
        Kurt Ingalls says:

        you don’t get “it”…..this is our system. They are our representatives. They failed us. No crying. Just outrage. True, honest to G#d, OUTRAGE!!!!! And to add insult to injury, “we” judge by results and the results are BAD. Any more questions????….”We” didn’t think so…… :-)

      • William Mitchell
        William Mitchell says:

        jburack, I’ve made this challenge before in various forums, and make it to you now:
        Can you name a SINGLE thing that Bush II + a Republican-controlled Congress did to reign in the growth of government?

        If so, please tell us what it is.

        • Kurt Ingalls
          Kurt Ingalls says:

          I’ll tell ya!!!! NOTHING!!!!! It is not about a political party…..WE ARE WAY BEYOND THAT!!!!!! The whole ruling class is circling the wagons on this election…….and along with the fourth estate YOU BETTER NOT GET ON THEIR BAD SIDE!!!!!! ……or you, too, will have a bimbo eruption……GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

    • Richard_Reed
      Richard_Reed says:

      Wow. Just wow. You have described my feelings more concisely and eloquently than I ever could. If only you wrote for National Review instead of Goldberg, George Will and the other #NeverTrumpers, I would not have cancelled my subscription.

      In fact, the entire comment (being from Texas, strongly supporting Cruz/Walker, being weary beyond words of our GOP ‘leaders’, never even knowing of alt-right until reading of them on NRO) could be autobiographical, except that I don’t wear a suit to work and I DID earn a B.A. from a “fancy-pants East Coast school.” (I am proud to say I later corrected that by earning a doctorate in geology from a Southwestern university which at the time was actually conservative.

      Cheers! I shall drink a wee dram in your honor. Maybe two or three, if Trump wins, for the race seems to be getting closer.

      • Matt_SE
        Matt_SE says:

        “You have described my feelings more concisely…”
        Were you planning on writing a novel about them?

      • Matt_SE
        Matt_SE says:

        “In fact, the entire comment (being from Texas, strongly supporting Cruz/Walker…”
        It’s an odd thing: I can’t find a single person who admits to voting for Trump in the primaries, and yet he got the most votes by far!

        You would think such a thing is mathematically impossible, yet here we are.

        • Lawrence Duffield
          Lawrence Duffield says:

          It is actually quite likely, with 17 candidates, that almost everybody voted for somebody else, or would have, if they’d lasted that long. It is also likely that the people who didn’t vote for Mr. Trump favored Sen. Cruz, because he got the next highest cohort of supporters. Also, you have to watch the wording: Mr. Trump was my tied-for-5th choice, but by the time of the California primary he’d made it to number one. So I think, if you worked it out on your spreadsheet, the whole narrowing process would make sense.

          Fortunately, at this point, whether you vote for the best candidate, or the second worst, you’ll be casting your ballot for Mr. Trump. It has come down to arithmetic, and if you subtract Hillary Clinton, you’ll get the right answer.

    • JSirko
      JSirko says:

      You’re completely right, Trump loses and establishment conservatism will burn to the ground and I’ll gladly light the first match. I stopped reading and listening to these fools 6 months ago, they just don’t get that they’re the ones in the bubble.

      • docdave88
        docdave88 says:

        Yep.

        Trump isn’t my first choice. He11, he’s my FOURTH choice behind Cruz, Fiorina and Carson in that order. My vote in the Missouri primary was for Cruz. My dream ticket was Cruz/Fiorina.

        I didn’t get them.

        But I still recognize that Trump has the only qualification that really matters.

        He. is. not. Monica. Lewinsky’s. Boyfriend’s. Wife.

    • BIGtimSullivan
      BIGtimSullivan says:

      Thank you for this comment. I’m happy to know I’m not alone. Couldn’t have said it better.

    • moogwrench
      moogwrench says:

      It is conservatives and not Establishmentarians that are most opposed to Trump. It was Boehner and not Cruz who bragged about being Trump’s golfing/texting buddy. You Trumpkins are such fools (and tools, I might add) for facilitating the election of Hillary Clinton with your ridiculous candidate.

      • Nate Jeppsen
        Nate Jeppsen says:

        I became a Cruz guy after Paul dropped out and agree with your sentiment. But if you don’t think both the media and backstabbing establishment wouldn’t have destroyed him prior to the convention and put a stake in him by now your are delusional.

        We don’t live in an America of rational or common sense and while Cruz’s personality and tough stances are what we need, they would have been his downfall. Don’t get me wrong I wish he was the nominee. I just don’t buy the idea they wouldn’t have destroyed him too. I mean Trump sure did.

          • Nate Jeppsen
            Nate Jeppsen says:

            I don’t but the public sure as hell is influenced by idiocy and current social trends. They are in the pocket of the progressive Washington establishment and butt kissed by the conservative one. All I am saying is that Trumps an idiot but probably will perform about like Cruz.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            IMO, Cruz would be doing better because he would’ve absolutely annihilated Hillary in the debates. Trump missed dozens of chances. Cruz wouldn’t have.

        • moogwrench
          moogwrench says:

          Nate, thanks for your reply. Let me say that I believe that Trump was able to destroy his opposition with a huge lift from the media. Dems honestly wanted Trump as Hillary’s opponent, and worked with Trump to destroy the credibility of all other candidates. Podesta’s and other Dem emails tend to support this. Let me share my thinking and see what you think.

          First off, in terms of his campaign, it is conceivable that Cruz could have floundered. He could have been pigeonholed into social issues; however, I think he would have been smart to pivot to economics and freedom in the general season, where conservatism’s libertarian “live-and-let-live” message is strongest. Additionally, I believe we can all admit he would have performed admirably against Hillary in the debates. And this is one of the factors in which the media was complicit in helping Trump–the fact that there were no debates post-March 15 (though they had been scheduled). It is understandable from Trump’s perspective that he would want to avoid debates after the carnival atmosphere had gone away and he would be forced to give answers longer than 30 seconds. The media allowed Trump to get away with cancelling the remaining debates.

          Also, I tend to think that the media followed Trump’s negative “Lyin’ Ted” narrative too closely, focusing on Ted’s moderate negatives while ignoring or downplaying Trump’s sky-high negatives. I remember journalists breathlessly asking if Cruz was likable enough to win, but I never heard that of Trump, despite the fact that Cruz’s positive/negative numbers were positive, and Trump’s were negative.

          So to say that Trump destroyed Cruz is to ignore the fact that had the media not incessantly echoed his narrative it would never have been firmly established. And yet now, having ensured he was the Republican candidate, the media turns on him, much to the surprise of Trump supporters. Trump supporters originally thought that Trump was the master of the media, when in the end it used him as justification for ensuring the demise of his more general-election qualified opponents.

        • Martin Knight
          Martin Knight says:

          The fact that the media would do their best to throw mud at any Republican candidate is not a good reason to pick a candidate who covers *himself* in mud and excrement.

          Even if every single NeverTrumper was to swear eternal loyalty and fall to their knees singing praises to Trump, it won’t make a difference, because Trump is 99% responsible for the state of his campaign.

          And yet, somehow, Jonah gets 100000 times more beef for Hillary’s position in the polls than Trump.

          WTF?

      • Severn
        Severn says:

        It is conservatives and not Establishmentarians that are most opposed to Trump.

        That’s a straight up lie. Phyllis Schlafy and Jeff Sessions = conservatives. Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg conservatives.

        • moogwrench
          moogwrench says:

          First off, you don’t convince me by citing what aren’t even very good examples. Kristol is an Establishmentarian, I will grant you that. However, Goldberg is not (I have no interest in debating this point–just go read Liberal Fascism and The Tyranny of Cliches). Phyllis Schlafy was old and perhaps senile; let us remember that she tried to kick her daughter and five others conservatives off the Eagle Forum (I think she had lost it by then) because they didn’t agree with her decision to back Trump. Poor Sesssions… he should have gone with Cruz instead; he thought he could use the populist support of Trump to further his own immigration goals; instead, it backfired and now his ideas are discredited and he looks like a fool. For example, before Trump, there was bipartisan support for a wall; now, post-Trump that support has dwindled. Yet another thing turned to shite in Trump’s hands. Boehner isn’t the only Establishmentarian buddy of Trump. I can name several off the top of my head. Hannity and Limbaugh, famous Establishmentarian water carriers for Delay and Bush, are in the pro-Trump camp. More conservative Beck and Levin are not. It wasn’t conservatives who ensured an RNC nomination, but the Establishmentarians who closed ranks around Trump and blocked all conservative (Lee, Cruz, etc.) dissent and attempts for an honest floor vote. I could go on and on.

          Anyways, I wouldn’t use such terms as “lie” to describe another person’s opinion, especially when you are pretty much dead wrong in your assertions.

          Secondly, and more importantly, you can argue about pundits and politicians (a rather small class of people), but in terms of actual voters, Trump has consistently polled behind in the “very conservative” demo and ahead in the “somewhat conservative” demo. Trump and his supporters are populists, which real conservatives don’t trust since popular passions often get inflamed in idiotic ways (i.e. protectionism). Additionally, Trump has a long progressive record which he currently disavows but we conservatives are very skeptical of late-life, politically convenient conversions. Hence, “very conservative” people tend to oppose him while more politically pragmatic “somewhat conservative” people are duped by, er I mean, tend to support him.

          Additionally, though anecdotally, Trumpkins routinely criticize conservatism asking dumb-as-dogshite questions like “What has conservatism conserved?” as if that is some kind of rhetorical Trump card, as they wax poetic in alt-Right, identitarian language. I get tired of this kind of thing; it shows that Trumpkins have no concept about what conservatism actually is, and they somehow conflate the conservatism with the GOP, its erstwhile vehicle.

          As I said, I could go on and on showing how conservatives tend to oppose and Establishmentarians tend to support Trump, but you’ll either be convinced by what I have written or remain in your mental ditch. If you support Trump, you are either a) not a conservative or b) you have been blinded by your understandable rage and can’t see what is going on. Either way, whatever.

    • Unclassifiable
      Unclassifiable says:

      Allow me to ride your coattails on this one texan59.

      Because above and beyond getting back to self-governance and other desired positions stated on this blog, we need folks to run. My GOP Congresscritter is a life-long servant of the Federal Government. So is Ted Cruz. Nothing wrong with either person when measured against the various flavors of leftism and their positions but they simply have had too much “get-along” tendencies to break the hold that the administrative state has on our body politic.

      No matter what the outcome of the Trump candidacy, let us hope that the mere example will get more “self-governors” out of the shadows running for office.

    • Party of Lincoln
      Party of Lincoln says:

      Sadly, texan59, what Trump and Trumpism offers is no possibility of a sustainable governing coalition. It’s pure fantasy to think that a majority of the people have anything but contempt for Trump and Trumpism. He’s bleeding red states to Hillary now and it appears even Texas — even Texas! — may be within her grasp.

      I know Texans who have NEVER voted for a Democrat in their lives who will not vote for Donald Trump and despise everything he represents.

      So the ball is your court. Either pout in your little corner or honestly acknowledge the catastrophic candidacy of Donald Trump and get on with a dialogue with conservatives on how to responsible deal with economic opportunity, trade, immigration, social decay and weakness abroad. Whatever the answers on all those difficult issues, the path to finding those answers do not go through Donald and Decius.

      • William Mitchell
        William Mitchell says:

        Like P Decius Mus, Trump was not my first choice. If anything, he was closer to the bottom. But the voters have spoken in the primaries, and Trump prevailed.

        There’s plenty I don’t like about him, still. I think he is undisciplined and has run an ineffective campaign. Even so, there’s no denying he calls BS on a lot of the PC nonsense. He has forced the MSM to out themselves as shills for the Democrat party. And he fights, at least for himself, which is something Repubs just don’t do. They seem to be satisfied as losers, so long as they keep their seats.

        Whenever there’s a conflict between Dems and Repubs (e.g. over budgets issues, immigration, and government shutdowns), the Repubs almost always put their tails between their legs and run away, and then make excuses about it. And if they won’t fight for themselves, they sure as hell won’t fight for the people who elected them.

        They talk a good game at election time. But government keeps getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

        If you repeatedly fail to do what you say you’re going to do, don’t expect people to be happy about it.

      • Brian McGregor
        Brian McGregor says:

        the ball is your court.
        Either oppose Hillary and support her opponent, or admit you are a pro-choice, wealth re-distributionist. Either way, if Trump loses, it’s all over. There will be no point in my voting anymore, and I will use my time more wisely every 2nd November.

      • Brother John the Deplorable
        Brother John the Deplorable says:

        If Texas is in play, it is only because it has been the dumping ground for so many Democrat voters from outside the US. It has been the prime target for such action since California became irreversible.

      • Eric Johnson
        Eric Johnson says:

        Trump is the only one out of the 17candidates for the Nomination with the brass balls to take the fight to the Democrats. That is a fact.

        Who else would so much as entertain the idea of spending the Al Smith Dinner bashing Hillary Clinton? Who else would point out that Hillary hates Catholics at a Catholic charity event? Everybody else would have made lame jokes about themselves, just like Romney and McCain and Bush before.

      • BillClintonsShorts17
        BillClintonsShorts17 says:

        Trump is like U.S. Grant. He fights. You really should channel Lincoln, Party of Lincoln.

        • Party of Lincoln
          Party of Lincoln says:

          Hillary “fights” too, but that’s hardly a sufficient reason to support her. Lincoln would be appalled by Trump. Anyone who believes himself to be a conservative should be appalled by a crony capitalist who had to be bailed out by the banks after he shoveled a billion dollars into the furnace into the Atlantic City casino market and who praised Hillary Clinton for the “great work” she did as Secretary of State.

          Trump was the only Republican who Hillary could beat, but like lemmings we nominated this ignorant moron who might as well be a paid staffer on the Clinton campaign.

          • BillClintonsShorts17
            BillClintonsShorts17 says:

            I preferred Cruz/Fiorina. I got outvoted. And I am a NeverHillary person. My choice is obvious.

    • Nate Jeppsen
      Nate Jeppsen says:

      Actually they’ve given us a lot. A 20 trillion dollar debt, Medicare Part D, massive government expansion (haven’t cut funding for a single program since 1994 let alone cut a program.), two boondoggle wars draining blood, treasury, and international confidence and respect. The maintenance of an entitlement system that will give our kids 100 trillion more to pay back.

      Meanwhile their nominees to the SC (and the Clinton and Obama choices they rolled on), have destroyed any constitutional barriers to both federal and federal executive limits, and taken marriage, and kept abortion from the sacred prerogative of the Several States.

      They gave us Chief Justice Roberts who made a deal with the devil twice on Obamacare. They gave us the Iran deal in the most cowardly move of 240 years of congressional actions (i.e. Trading their Treaty Powers for a super-majority veto so they could vote against it and hope we didn’t notice.)

      For the big government evangelicals that have mindlessly supporting them for being pro life, they have given planned parenthood whatever it asks for to go about its grisly business.

      They gave us regulation of the air we breathe out (That was Bushy initiative shamefully graced by the sanction of our so called conservative Court).

      They gave us the nightmarish mortgage and financial system in which the banks and their Wall Street and K street buddies win every transaction after they bailed them out simply because they were the big and rich (i.e. too big to fail). They have by failure to use the power of the purse, allowed Obamacare to function thus giving us a program that cost 3 times (not to even really fix the problem) than the alleged problem was costing us, and has destablized our medical system to make single payer inevitable.

      Best of all they have funded and exponentially increased funding for an education system that shamelessly churns out millions of hateful little brown shirt snowflakes that are unhirable in the private sector if not for the federal gun that is directed at big employers.

      They have done OK with the 2nd amendment. A prospect that they probably regret given their relationship with the people, but in exchange they have given us secret courts and secret warrantless NSA access to our e-mails and texts. They have given us that Soviet sounding benemuth we call Homeland Security.

      Id say they’ve done a damn good job delivering…lol

    • Eric377
      Eric377 says:

      Boehner was correct in what he claimed concerning what would get done. Conservatives lost patience when patience was critical.

      • Baroo00
        Baroo00 says:

        Yes, he was right.

        The problem was that they ran on the promise that getting that control WOULD make a difference.

        I didn’t have any delusions about how much they could actually accomplish with only “1/2 of 1/3”, but I was (and still am) insulted about the blatant two-faced-ness (word?) of their politicking, and their continued use of it despite being called out.

        We have been patient, and we keep being played for fools to help them entrench their power, much to our demise…

        • Eric377
          Eric377 says:

          I don’t think so. Consider the Bush tax cuts and Merrick Garland. A Republican House alone could not keep the tax cut on the books, but did get the threshold for increases raised to $400K/year. Very skillful, actually. Is Garland a justice? Again, delivering on the possible. The needed to hold the Senate and win the Presidency. Republicans should vote for Trump, but how could he have been nominated? Only by a party unconcerned with winning. Neither party has any excuse for whatever happens.

    • Matt_SE
      Matt_SE says:

      “Fair and square.”
      According to Wikileaks, the Dems told the press to give Trump $1 billion in free advertising. Is that what you call “fair?” Trump was right: the election was rigged. In his favor.

      Conservatives mentioned this at the time (e.g. on Media Research Center), but Trumpkins preferred to believe that Trump had magical media kung-fu powers, because that flattered their egos.

      • Severn
        Severn says:

        According to Wikileaks, the Dems told the press to give Trump $1 billion in free advertising.

        Needless to say you just made that up. Wikileaks said noth9ing of the sort. The Dems did not tell the press to give Trump $1 billion in free advertising, and the press did not give Trump $1 billion in free advertising. What the press did was spend hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Trump.

    • Matt_SE
      Matt_SE says:

      “…Bob Dole…”
      Hey, didn’t Bob Dole enthusiastically endorse Trump over Cruz? Yes, I believe he did.
      It was mentioned at the time that this was because the GOPe thought Trump was far more corruptible and willing to “cut deals,” which turned out to be true.

    • William Mitchell
      William Mitchell says:

      What texan59 said. 1000%

      The GOP has been fund-raising and getting votes for as long as I can remember by calling us on the phone at election time and saying stuff like, “Send us your money or the Democrats will be in power.”

      Technically, Republicans presently have control of the House and Senate. But we have a Democrat president who hasn’t merely assumed office, he’s assumed power. So the Democrats are in power anyway.

      To the Repubs- what good are ya?

    • docdave88
      docdave88 says:

      Precisely.

      Whenever I, a self-identified conservative, am accused of being a Republican I shout “NO!”

      I am completely aware that, prior to the Boy King stumbling drunkenly onto the scene out of his Chicago crib, the greatest increase in the national debt and in the overreach of a run-amok federal government had come under his predecessor under the rubric of “compassionate conservatism.” Sorry, but I cannot slip the blade of a sharp knife, the only kind I keep around, between that and liberalism.

      Trump/Pence 2016

      One Last Chance

    • grandmalcaesar
      grandmalcaesar says:

      Best point is that the other candidates DROPPED OUT! Many after almost no effort. How weak is that? I liked several of them, but by the time the primaries rolled around to my state they were out!

    • Aaron Baugher
      Aaron Baugher says:

      Well said. The last time I spent more than five minutes on an election was in the recount phase of 2000. Every new story about hanging chads and confusing ballots was hotly debated online, and I probably typed a book’s worth of text in arguing it all — in service of what? So we could get a “compassionate conservative” who ushered in Ted Kennedy’s education takeover, expanded government in pretty much every way, catered to the globalists, and appointed the moderate Roberts who surprised everyone by approving Obamacare — after trying to nominate the likely liberal Harriet Miers.

      What a waste of effort. This is the first election since that has piqued my interest at all, because it’s the first one that wasn’t a sporting event between the faster and slower versions of the globalist left. My state isn’t even in play, but I’ll be voting because I simply want to be involved in the revolution if it happens. It’s the first fun election of my life, despite all the scolds, and that seems like a good thing.

    • Kurt Ingalls
      Kurt Ingalls says:

      Spoken as a true Jacksonian….these people beat you up, and I don’t blame them…..your a fool…..you think that being American means that you owe all that you are blessed with to a political party….you Jackass, your the very reason we have this mess…..you worship a political entity and basically said a big “F you ” to your country….George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us about people like you!!!!!! Read it, get your nose out of the NYT and the WaPo and educate yourself!!!! He warned us of people and groups who put political aspirations ahead of the good of our sovereign nation….look at the damage, you insufferable bore…..look at what you have done……nothing but war and identity politics, poverty, crony-capitalism, pay to play….and do things get better, HELL NO….YOU MAKE THEM WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….at what point do you, or anyone else, wake up…..do you want to know something? That guy next to you is an American, too…..but you don’t care….because just like the extreme, meaning the National Socialist and the Communist, the party comes before the PEOPLE!!!!!……I’m a Texan and I’m ashamed to be associated with you…… :-)

      • texan59
        texan59 says:

        Someone is rather angry here. Apparently I didn’t use small enough words for you to understand, because your response in no way reflects my opinion. Everything I said is pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Just so you know, I don’t spend much time reading the rags you mentioned, as in never, but you are a caring compassionate person, and for some ill-conceived reason, you seem to think I hate everyone. I for one, do not put any stock in what any politician tells me. If you put your faith in their hands, you deserve what you get. While I am a Texan, I’m not ashamed to be associated with you, because I DO care about what happens to this Country, and I don’t like what has happened. At all. Have a nice day my friend. BTW, it’s spelled you’re. Not your.

    • BillClintonsShorts17
      BillClintonsShorts17 says:

      Bravo Zulu, texan59. I second your sentiments. And I am doubly proud to call Texas home, knowing I have neighbors like you.

  3. Scott Carroll
    Scott Carroll says:

    The Conservative Professionals who make up the He-Man Trump Haters Club are willfully obtuse regarding so many things in this election that it’s hard to keep track. Firstly, as Decius pointed out in his Flight 93 essay, should Clinton win in 2016 and 2020, they will be living on borrowed time professionally. They are useful now as a Potemkin Opposition and as apologists for the strident ad hominems directed at Trump and his supporters. But there will come a time (and soon) in which their particular jig will be up. The left will collectively decide that they have constructed a durable electoral majority for decades to come and they will no longer feel the need to countenance even token disagreement.

    The uneasy alliance that existed on the right since Reagan is nearing it’s denouement. The only thing that papered over our differences heretofore was political victory. Consistently being bloodied by the left on the issues that matter have exposed the fault lines in our “movement.”

    The coming conservative crack-up will be horrible for the country to be sure. It will hand the Democrats unfettered power. With Republicans, libertarians, and nationalists splitting the right-wing, Democrats will clean up in every election. America will essentially be a one-party state. And, historically, that has never worked out too well. It seems that the #NeverTrump cabal are completely oblivious to the fact that those they’ve so giddily stabbed in the back now will be loathe to support them in the future. After all, turnabout is fair play.

    Oh and one more indictment of the #NeverTrump movement is this: It has given cover to and emboldened the Media to be more outrageously biased and partisan than ever before. “Why, of course we’re trying to bury Trump! Even other Republicans think he’s Hitler!” It is inconceivable that the Media would have taken their machinations in 2016 as far as they have without the quiet acquiescence of #NeverTrump.

    • Historybuff
      Historybuff says:

      Bunk.

      You lord trump never beat either clinton or sanders. Trump was a ‘no-win’ from the beginning – but you trump cultists shoved the sleazeball down our throats anyway… KNOWING that supporting trump was to give the election to clinton.

      Well, likely sleazy clinton will win. Nice job – YOU gave the election to the democrats. So, lets get on with your ‘crackup’… YOU need to get out – go form your own party.

      Get Out – Now!
      HB

      • Rob Miller
        Rob Miller says:

        Why yes..a RECORD number of voters picked Trump…almost 50% of the primary votes cast. Are you really that stupid to think that if you’d managed to shove one of the usual GOP establishment packages on us as nominee, they would have won? That trick can
        only work so many times.

        Do you really think none of them wouldn’t have been demonized the sam eway Trump is? The difference here is that people like you helped.

        Good luck reorganizing your party.Do you think that after the way people like you have behaved, and of Trumps supporters are going to come back? And that Hillary isn’t going to make sure you never have any presence or real power ever again, especially after she stacks the Court?

        If you survive at all, you’re going to end up as a comic villain joke, Wiley Coyote to the Dems Roadrunner.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          LOL, what bunk.

          YOU… and your lord trump… are democratic supports pretending to be Republicans. Indeed, your lord trump’s record is supportive of democrats, and clinton specifically.

          “The last time Trump considered a White House run in 2011, reporters seized upon the fact that he has given most of his money to Democrats and Democratic causes, according to records.”
          http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071

          How do you explain that, big guy? And there is more… and YOU know it.

          Get Out. Go start your own party.
          HB

          • richord
            richord says:

            Your lack of intelligence is astounding! Trump supporters are the true heart of the Republican Party. That is a simple mathematical fact.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Not after November 8. If Trump loses bigly (heh), you’re gonna look awfully foolish. And you will have deserved it.

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Why is it that you can’t resist providing more proof of the failure of the Republican Party?

            The Democrat Party has the power. They receive the bribes – ahem, I mean, “donations”. Especially in New York, despite the fact that the only Republican mayor was wildly successful in reforming it and solving most of the problems. You’d think that would be enough to overcome the natural political bent of New York, but looks like the Republican Party failed to capitalize. But in any case, if you want donations, you need power.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            If the Republican Party can only succeed by emulating demorcratic party ethics…

            Then, the republican party should go away quietly.
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            “if the American army can only succeed by emulating Japanese tactics…

            then we should quietly go away and let them continue to attack us”

            do you see how stupid you sound?

            the left owns the culture, they make the rules. The only way to take it back and remake the rules, is to play their game and take back control of the culture and demolish the bureaucracy. Trump gets that, the Republican Party doesn’t. And that’s why control of both houses of Congress just leads to more Democrat government spending, the one issue they should at least pretend to be solid on.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Nonsense.

            America always stood for Freedom and democracy. The Japanese did not.

            America was right, America won… because America was good. When the Republicans are no longer good… Republicans will no longer win.
            HB

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            If America stands for freedom and democracy as you say, then Trump is the legitimate nominee..yet you support the candidate of rigging elections and voter fraud. And don’t even try to BS your way out of it by saying you’re voting third party. If you’re a Republican and don’t vote for Trump, you support Hillary and all she stands for.

            .Ignorant hypocrite

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Awe… poor baby… people catching on to your lies?

            Hehehe, your lord trump… wouldn’t even carry a rifle for ‘freedom and democracy’… cause he had a ‘bone spur’ on an ankle… that he couldn’t even remember which ankle.

            Trump cares nothing for Freedom and Democracy – trump cares only about his tender ego. He loves your worshiping him.
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            In that case, I propose that Trump stands for Freedom and democracy, so he’ll be all right even if he emulates the tactics of the Democrats.

            Seriously, you argue like a 5-year-old. Either the enemies’ tactics can be used against them or they can’t. And are you saying McCain and Romney weren’t good?

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Sorry… its not something you ‘propose’… its something that you are.

            And trump ain’t got it!
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Sorry for you, but it’s clear that he does, just like it’s clear that you have no coherent moral principles except “people I like get to do bad stuff, and people I don’t like don’t”.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            “When the Republicans are no longer good… Republicans will no longer win.”

            —W. won in 2000 with Republican Congress. McCain lost in 2008 with huge Democrat majorities. So does that mean the Republicans won in 2000 because with Bush and gay pædo Hastert they were “good” while McCain and Congressional Republicans in 2008 were “no longer good”?

          • disqus_b8ZHbYPx9w
            disqus_b8ZHbYPx9w says:

            You can’t control the culture. The culture is, more or less beyond the control of politics, except for extreme cases (i.e. North Korea) and perhaps long range social engineering. And even there, very difficult.

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            Trump also gave a lot of money to Romney and endorsed him in 2012. And according to NY state records, he’s been a registered Republican for over a decade.

            That said, make no mistake that a lot of us are going to take your advice no matter how things turn out. If Trump wins and he’s smart, he will either purge your ilk and/or form a new party of patriots from those members of the GOP and those Democrats disgusted by what their party has become(Jim Webb is an example) and who are prepared to place country over their perks and their wallets.

            People with your views are beneath contempt, because you’re willing to sell your freedom out for the status quo. if you can’t lend a hand then get out of the way, as a certain Nobel Prize winner once said.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            LOL !

            If your sleazy trump wins… what makes you think traditional Conservatives will want to align with a wife-beating liar that lies, is secretive about his ‘success’ finances, cheats his business partners, scams older people, and bullies he weak?

            By all means, please take your sleazy trump ethics… and start your own party – and be sure take all those that agree with your sleaze and ethics.
            HB

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            I see you’ve swallowed the ReadyForHillary bogus talking points whole and are now regurgitating them like the good little Tory puppet you are. Anyone who knows anything about Donald Trump could refute this, but you aren’t worth the time, frankly.

            Go vote for Queen Hillary and be damned. You fool NO ONE.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Ah… you trump cultists… can’t handle the truth… so you lie about anyone that won’t fit into YOUR narrow minded way of thinking.

            And… You do realize, Trump is the ONLY republican candidate that has consistently lost to clinton or sanders… all the rest of the republican candidates consistently BEAT clinton – therefore, if you vote trump… You are supporting hillery clinton.

            Think about it, bub.
            HB

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            You’re not a traditional conservative, you’re a neocon.

            Most the #NeverTrumpists who claim he’s not a “true conservative” voted for the socially liberal Mormon who rapes small businesses and keeps his money in the Caymans; a bats*** insane senator who was a rich playboy and bottom of his class at Naval Academy, who sings songs about bombing people and who left his dying wife to screw, then marry, a beauty queen; and a certified idiot and former playboy and cokehead who couldn’t run a business gifted to him.

            But Trump – he’s beyond the pale, so low class, ewwwwwww.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Are Trumpkins claiming they’re conservatives now? It’s hard to tell, because sometimes Decius says one thing, sometimes he says the opposite.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Trump represents a more true conservatism, not the construct of classical liberalism + neoconservative foreign policy + a feigned abstract “Judeo-Christianity” perhaps better known as recycled Whiggery from 19th century English politics.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Trump is in no way conservative. All conservatives (the ones without prefixes) believe in limited government, and with the tax collections/spending at historic highs, there’s no position to take but that government must be cut.

            If Trump has ever suggested reduction in government, it would be a by-product of some other program, not directly. Any such incidental cuts would also be negated by his big-spending programs like whatever socialized medicine he thinks will replace Obamacare.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Ted Cruz said this 85000 times in debates and lost, get over it.

            Nobody cares that Trump was not a Republican since he was 6 months old or whatever. If you want to belong to a club, go join a country club or yacht club, and leave the GOP alone.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            That will be put to the test soon enough. If Trump loses by a greater margin than Romney (4%) or McCain (7%), it must’ve been due to poor support in the GOP.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Actually, sleazy trump is a democrat – here is who he admires…

            “Yet as recently as last year, Trump called Bill Clinton the best of the past four U.S. presidents. In 2008, Trump called him a “great president” and said the Clintons are “fine people.”
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/05/17/donald-trump-bill-clinton-economy/84500518/

            Hehehe, imagine that – YOUR trump… admires billy clinton.

            Amazing, whoe rich, elite, establishment ‘penthouse trash’ type folks find for friends.
            HB

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Your lord trump is opposed to billy clinton. Billy clinton is a bad guy.

            So, what changed? Is trump lying?
            HB

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            And question is not about character but presidency … not that the Bushes or Obama are stellar human beings.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Since there are very few substantive policy differences between the Bushes, Clintons, and Obama, I don’t care whom one chooses of those four as the best president.

            The argument for Billy is obviously that the economy was better (even manufacturing briefly increased) and the budget balanced. However, any of those presidents could have probably presided over the same had they served in that time period.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            CORRECTION: Trump still received 45% of the popular vote in a field where only 4 people got over 100 delegates and the 5th place person got 7. In other words, a 5-person race.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            OK, let’s look at this, taking your five-candidate assertion:

            Trump 45%
            Cruz 25%
            Kasić 14%
            Rubio 11%
            Carson 3%

            That looks pretty overwhelming to me. Let’s think of this some other ways – Trump only lost a handful of actual primaries – Cruz’s and Kasić’s home states, OK (borders TX), WI (concerted effort by GOPe/Ryan), and ID (Mormons). He won 33 and lost five.

            Now, if we want to be fair and subtract the contests that were not properly contested, then he won 24 and lost five and the vote was something more like this:

            Trump 42%
            Cruz 27%
            Kasić 14%
            Rubio 12%
            Carson 3%

            If we look at McCain or Romney and how they did in *contested* primaries, their showing was worse than Trump’s. Simply, since they were establishment candidates their opposition was under pressure to drop out earlier in primary season.

            Romney won all primaries together 52%-20% Sant – 14% Ging – 11% Paul. However, if we just take primaries before Santorum dropped out:

            Romney 11 primaries – 4.5 mln 40%
            Santorum 6 primaries – 3.1 mln 27%
            Gingrich 2 primaries – 2.26 mln 20%
            Paul 0 primaries – 1.2 mln 11%

            McCain overall won 47% vs. 22% Rom 20% Huck 6% Paul 3% Giul 1% Thomp. However, if we only count through when Huckabee dropped out, the totals are:

            McCain 20 primaries – 7.34 mln – 42%
            Romney 3 primaries – 4.53 mln – 27%
            Huckster 5 primaries – 3.91 mln – 22%
            Paul 0 primaries – 790k – 4%
            Giuliani – 590k – 3%
            Thompson – 290k – 2%

            This is almost identical to Trump’s showing except that McCain won a smaller proportion of primaries (71% vs. 83%).

            There you go. Trump’s win *was* impressive.

            40% against three opponents and only winning 53% of primaries? That’s worse

            So stop whining.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            The race was over before the halfway point, because after that came the Northeast. That means Trump won half the states with no opposition (he was always going to win the Northeast).
            Less than a majority of votes in the primary = fractured support in the general. That’s why the GOP has the requirement of a majority for an outright win: it gives legitimacy.

        • maxime1793
          maxime1793 says:

          Personally, I don’t think Trump is really ahead but yes, he’s competitive and these Beltway dickheads want to declare him the loser already because all their friends aren’t voting for him.

        • Timothy Bladel
          Timothy Bladel says:

          Look at the polls. One admits it’s a joke, the otheris a joke, and one has a large pool of undecideds because it’s mythology counts soft support as undecided. Trump is cooked.

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            Let’s get two things straight about polls as I write on October 23:

            First, each and every poll is meaningless if it takes place before November 8.

            Second, each and every poll is designed to influence that one, and we know in which direction that influence leans. If you are so sure because of a poll, then you are being led around by the nose, willfully or otherwise.

        • Matt_SE
          Matt_SE says:

          LA Times: the paper that’s sitting on the Khalidi tapes.
          Rassmussen: the company that changed its favorability polls of Obama after Holder threatened to investigate them (and never went back).
          IBD: conservative editorials in a left-leaning publication (as far as I’ve heard).

          You’re being Todd Akin’ed.

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            Actually it was Gallup who changed Obama’s rating after being threatened, not Rasmussen. And IBD was the most accurate poll in 2012. The Times SC poll is interesting because they’re using a different methodology than the others and have consistently shown Trump ahead in spite of the Times’ ultra leftist stance.

            Again, I don’t think that the polls are telling the whole story here…see my comment up thread.

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            Perhaps, but remember, by his own admission Silver and his crew (all Hillary dems BTW) totally missed Trump’s winning the primaries. His weighting,IMO is rather partisan. I also still maintain that a lot of what’s going on now is a tactic to disillusion trump supporters, convince them he’s already lost and effect turnout. Plus, alot of people who publicly diss Trump because it keeps them from beimng harassed are likely to vote for him inthe privacy of the voting booth. Remember what I wrote earlier:

            The real question that will decide the election is how many of Trump’s voters, a significant number who have avoided voting for years an dare not ‘likely voters’ will show up as opposed to the illegal migrants, dead people and out right fraud the Democrats can muster in those urban fortresses of theirs.

            And how many blacks and Latinos will finally vote their self interest instead of remaining on the democrat plantation. If Trump can get 20-25% of the black vote, he might just end up winning. And a lot of Latinos i know support him, because they deal with the fall out fr4om illegal migrants every day..

            So we’ll see.

            Caveat: DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE EXIT POLLS. They’re part of the same media tactic to drive down Trump’s turnout. That also applies to ‘calling’ of states based on the exit polls. . If you remember, they’ve been seriously wrong before.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            The thing is, I’ve been here before with the “polls are skewed against Romney” thing. After the election was over, conservatives online had to listen to “skewed polls” jibes for a year.
            And the thing was, it stung so badly because the progs were right: we believed in a fantasy because we wanted it to be true.

            If Trump loses by a large margin (like, 2 times the margin of error of 3%), you’re going to get that same treatment, from all sides.

            In my experience, polls are usually not rigged.

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            Oh, I hear you. But I can tell you that a lot of the polls WERE skewed in 2012 because I examined their mechanics and did the math.

            A big part of Romney losing, BTW, was the fact that over 3 million self -declared Republicans sat home. No one figured on that, although they should have given his abysmal campaign. . If they’d have shown up, he would have won.

            Remember also that there was a great amount of voter fraud.In Philly, for instance, there were precincts with over 120% turnout without a single Romney vote.

            When skewed publicly released polls are released as a tactic to drive down GOP turnout, they can become a self -fulfilling prophecy.

            All I’m saying at this point is to get out and vote and ignore this tactic. Trump may lose (given that his own party is doing their best to sabotage him as well as the media AND the Dems, it would be a major upset if he won) but let’s wait until the votes are counted and see how it goes without relying on polls.

            if the publicly released polls were that accurate, would the candidates spend big money to hire their own, private pollsters? it ain’t over until it’s over.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Uh, there’s a lot you said about the 2012 race I don’t believe, but I’m not going to rehash the race now.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            I don’t think they’re usually rigged en masse, but some are rigged a few % for the Dems. For years Gallup leaned Democrat. In 2008, their last poll had Obama up 11%, 4% off. They readjusted methodology to be more pro-GOP, then ended up 4-5% in the other direction, predicting a small Romney win.

            You have to admit some polls are rigged – take the CNN-ORC debate poll. CNN-ORC regular polls are not particularly biased against the GOP, but the debate polls were “volunteers” from regular polls who just happened to be about 3:2 for Hillary going into the poll. Then they take the results, don’t readjust them for demographics, and claim “Americans who watched the debate” believe Hillary won the debate by 35%/23%/13%. That’s obvious manipulation.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            If they were systemically biased, it would be detected at the end of the cycle and adjusted. I don’t believe in intentionally-biased polls (i.e. conspiracy) because it would be bad for polling companies in the long run.

            Groups like Nate Silver’s rate polling companies on their track record and adjust the polls accordingly. That’s why people trust them, mostly.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            The CNN debate poll is already an example. Here’s another:

            Polls for the Brexit referendum consistently showed Remain ahead … until 2-3 weeks out and Leave took a lead. Politically correct MP Jo Cox was shot and this was blamed on the far right and Remain took a lead. The final poll released had 55 Remain 45 Leave. The final result was 52 Leave, so a 14 point difference! If you read the crosstabs for the 55% Remain poll, however, you saw they deliberately overweighted young people (a very pro-Remain group) and underweighted working class people (very pro-Leave). I readjusted these averages to the norm and saw that the sample should have legitimately yielded a 51-49 narrow Remain lead, which, though also incorrect, was closer to the real result than the adjusted projection.

            Yes, polls are intentionally jacked. So it’s a “conspiracy”, yeah, ok, and…? Don’t you read the Wikileaks, conspiracies are common in politics. I agree your standard polling firm wants an accurate result for its reputation … but you are only judged on your final prediction. The goal of creating misleading polls such as the 12% lead in ABC-WP today is to change perceptions ahead of the vote.

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            “The final poll released had 55 Remain 45 Leave.”
            You’ve taken an entire series of polls, and thrown them all away except this last one.
            In other words, you have one poll.
            Don’t give me this crap, give me the averages. The averages would’ve diluted this bias down to almost nothing.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            That was illustrating how polls are jacked. The average for final Brexit polls was around 52 Remain, so about 8% off the result (+4 vs. -4).

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Then I assume their methods will be corrected if the polling companies want to stay in business. That’s what happened in the US after the wild mis-reading of the 2014 polls. Even Nate Silver admitted they were systemically biased.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Silver was accurate enough in 2012 but blew the primaries (not just with Trump; gave Hillary a 99% chance to win MI). He’s readjusting pro-Democrat polls in a generally pro-Clinton direction (twice, at the national level and state level and then readjusting the already adjusted state averages based on the adjusted national polls).

            As I’ve said, it makes sense to give Hillary some points for IBD-TPP, Rasmussen, and LAT-USC, but you should subtract points from Hillary for polls that sample 10% more Ds than Rs (or oversample young voters).

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            So being “Akin’ed” refers to an assumed conspiracy that the liberal media rig polls to favour the Republican just to troll GOP voters?

            Or what the hell are you trying to say?

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            Yes, a reference to Todd Akin from 2012.
            He made a stupid remark about abortion that hurt him horribly in the polls. There was still time for him to withdraw and probably for a replacement to win (it was viewed as a favorable race for the GOP), but Dems fed him bogus “polls” that convinced him he was still viable. I think they got money to him too, somehow, IIRC.
            He believed it because he wanted to, and went on to get massacred.

            Missouri has Senator Claire McCaskill because of it.

            It was later confirmed that’s exactly what happened, so it’s not an alleged conspiracy. Everyone could see it coming from a mile away except Akin.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            I know about Akin but I had never heard the allegation that he was fed bogus polls.

            The GOPe wanted Trump out from well before primary votes were cast. Nobody gives a damn if he said p**sy 85 years ago.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Looking up the MO 2012 election. The polls that had Akin up after the comment were Gravis (GOP-leaning, works with Breitbart now) and Wenzel (worked for Rand Paul). There were a couple Democrat firms that had it close (We Ask America and PPP). Maybe we have evidence some Dem operative had this idea about how to troll Akin but I doubt it was that decisive.

      • Kenneth Schmidt
        Kenneth Schmidt says:

        Post-1990’s Conservatism will pretty much never go anywhere. The modern Conservative elite are the permanent “loyal opposition” to our Leftist masters. Goldberg himself wrote that the fight between Conservatives and Liberals is a kind of internal battle between believers in Liberal Democracy and the Enlightenment. First man that tells me that I am part of a movement promoting Liberal democracy and the Enlightenment will get a knuckle sandwich. Before the Neo-con takeover in 1989-90, Conservatism had many weaknesses. After the takeover it became entirely useless as a serious form of opposition to Liberalism.Goldberg and his kind are a blight on Conservatism. The rot set in a long time ago.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          That’s funny…

          Republicans dominate the House, the Senate, the Governorships, the State Legislatures, and even the County Commissions.

          Now tell me what the Conservatives are doing wrong? Granted, sleazy trump has now sabotaged Republican presidential chances for 2016, but in the larger scheme of things, that is a singular failure of judgement.

          As far as ‘Conservatism’… I cannot conceive of ANY Conservative movement that is not founded on fundamental personal & organizational INTEGRITY.

          You lose.
          HB

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            Yes, conservatives, or at least Republicans, control the House, Senate, most governorships, most state legislatures, and most country commissions, but so what? What have they done with all that? The left continues to win all the important policy battles.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Republican states have done quite well – look at Texas. THAT is what they have done.

            Dow, go back and review your “US Constitution 101″… and refresh yourself on what it takes to effect change – a HOUSE… a SENATE… and a PRESIDENT. All three.
            HB

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            And yet the left seems to effect change, radical change, at that, without controlling Congress. And even when the Republicans did control both houses and the presidency, what did we get to show for it?

          • Baroo00
            Baroo00 says:

            A growing economy.

            Low (truly) unemployment.

            A fairly stable Middle East (no matter what you thought of our going in there).

            Good SCOTUS appointments.

            A “massive” deficit of $162 Billion (oh, those were the days).

            Big down-ticket political gains.

            Not much, I guess…

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            What color is the sky on your planet? A growing economy? From 2003 to 2005, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, GDP grew at a rate above three percent for only two years: at 3.8% in 2004 and then 3.3% in 2005, before falling to 2.7% in 2006 and then 1.8% in 2007. What an impressive economic record.

            It is true that unemployment was low during that period, but then it shot up to record highs immediately thereafter, so that’s hardly a ringing endorsement of GOP economic management either.

            A “fairly stable Middle East”? I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but I want some. This was the period when we were fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which thousands of Americans died, and for what? Was America really better off for having invaded Iraq?

            Good SCOTUS appointments? One good one, and we had to fight Bush to get that. If he had had his way, we would have gotten Harriet Myers instead of Alito. As for Roberts, calling him a good appointment is crazy. Or have you forgotten any of his ACA decisions?

            As for the deficit, was it lower than under Obama? Yes, but the national debt still grew by almost five trillion dollars during Bush’s tenure. So, yay?

            As for “[b]ig down-ticket political gains”, what planet are you on? Thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration, we got Obama and huge Democratic majorities in Congress, which is how we got Obamacare. Bush led the Republicans straight into the political wilderness.

            And what was the point of any of this? Did anything happen during that time to prevent, say, same-sex marriage? When we might have successfully pushed for a Defense of Marriage Amendment to preempt Obergefell? No, in fact Bush and the GOP congressional leadership, including McCain, who was the Republican nominee in 2008, opposed that, killing any chance of it.

            Did we get school choice, which Bush campaigned on in 2000 and which might have helped break the leftist stranglehold on the schools, which allows them to indoctrinate the young? No, instead Bush let Ted Kennedy write his education bill; Bush couldn’t wait to jettison any meaningful choice provisions from that law. Instead, we got pointless new spending and federal interference in the public schools.

            Did we get any meaningful opposition to affirmative action in higher education, when there was momentum in favor of real equality? No, instead, the Bush administration wrote an amicus brief for racial preferences when the matter was before the Supreme Court and the case came down to a single vote.

            Did we get any serious attempt to appoint conservatives to the lower federal courts? No, instead, the Dems filibustered Bush’s nominees, the Republicans made some idle threats about abolishing the filibuster–the so-called “nuclear option”–and then caved. Note that when the Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate, they went nuclear right away, allowing Obama to fill lower-court vacancies with radical leftists who will be pushing jurisprudence to the left for generations to come.

            Any attempt to alter the ongoing demographic shift of the electorate owing to mass immigration? The same mass immigration that is turning Republicans and conservatives into a permanent minority? No, of course not.

            So we got anemic economic performance, a foreign-policy catastrophe, and no meaningful effort on any of the cultural issues that are transforming American society out from under us. And you wonder why people have lost patience with the Republican and conservative establishments.

          • Baroo00
            Baroo00 says:

            You asked what we got to show for control of both houses and the presidency, and I gave you a list. And while I agree with much of what you state here, your methods are quite Progressive – resorting to insult, moving the goal posts, and lots of hyperbole.

            Most of your “rebuttals” required you to venture into 2007 and beyond to “prove” your point. The economy was quite good until the Dems took over in 2006, unemployment was quite low as well. But to make your point, you diminish any real achievements, and turn several molehills into mountains.

            I am not here to defend Bush, or even the Republican establishment, but to lump them in with the Dems and what Obama has done the last eight years is ridiculous – the difference between a smoldering pile of rags and a four-alarm fire.

            Bush inherited a recession from the dot-com bubble and then 9-11. Yet he was able to accomplish meaningful tax rate reductions that again spurred the economy. Could he and the Republicans have done more? Absolutely, but it was far better than the incompetency of the last ten years.

            The Middle East was stable in 2006. I didn’t say it was a good thing we went in, or that there weren’t major problems along the way, but it was stable in 2006. You harp on the negatives, but the world would be far better if the ME had remained that way instead of what happened after the Dems took over.

            I don’t care why or how, but we got Alito, and, other than the ACA (which I agree was an appalling decision), Roberts has been a good judge. I know this weakens your argument to acknowledge, and puts you off of your absolutist rant, but facts is facts.

            Republicans held the majority of governorships during this period, but did lose the majority in 2007. They more than recovered in 2010.

            Yes, I wish they had done more, and your list is quite comprehensive, but again, to say they did nothing, or we would be just as fine if the Dems had been in instead is absurd.

            So save your insults and snark for the Progressives – it’s their style, and they’ll appreciate it more. Me, I just find it silly…

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            First of all, the economy was not “quite good” in 2006; it was already sliding into recession, as declining growth numbers for the previous two years reveal. The economy did not change direction when the Democrats took over Congress, it just kept going in the same direction. The recession officially started in 2007; saying that that was the responsibility of the Democrats who took control of Congress in that same year, while exculpating Bush for having inherited economic problems, is clear special pleading.

            Second of all, your list of “accomplishments” were not real accomplishments. Do you know how I know? Because when the Democrats held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they did not bother to repeal a single thing that had happened when the Republicans had controlled the Presidency and both houses. What better indictment of GOP uselessness do you need?

            Third, you say that Roberts “only” failed us on ACA, but that was one of the two most important decisions to come before the Court during his tenure, and it was a decision that came down to one vote. Meaning that his vote was the decisive one. He went with us on Obergefell, when it did not matter, when his vote would not change anything.

            The Middle East was not stable in 2006. The conflagration had abated temporarily, but if all it took was American inaction over the next few years to bring it to a cataclysm, then it was not stable. The word “stable” means that if something is left alone, it will remain in the same state or situation. If something will undergo cataclysmic change in a short time in the absence of outside intervention, then it is by definition unstable.

            You say you do not care about how we got Alito, but if we have to fight the Republican establishment to get a good judicial appointment, and we did, then something is very wrong with that establishment, and it needs to be changed.

            Finally, sorry about the snark and insults.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            The left did their big changes while they controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency. After that, things went bad because they did not do things – like honor the Syria Red Line commitment.

            And for the umpteenth time… the House… the Senate… have zero, no, nada. Operational Responsibility for Government.

            Do YOU expect the House or Senate… to violate the Constitution?
            HB

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            Really? Obergefell happened in 2015, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Pull the other one.

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            Are you joking? Obergefell? The Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country? Ring any bells? I’d call that a pretty big change in a left-ward direction, and it happened when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Why do YOU think a Republican controlled House & Senate… can tell the Supreme Court of the United States how to determine their cases?

            Are you even American?
            HB

          • Oddstar7
            Oddstar7 says:

            Let’s recap: I point out that control of Congress doesn’t matter, because the left wins major policy victories without it, and the right does not win significant policy victories with it. You claim that the left only won their significant victories when they controlled Congress. I give an example to falsify that claim. You acknowledge your ignorance of recent, well-publicized history. You then concede the original point that control of Congress does not matter, because all the real power is in the courts and the executive branch, without acknowledging that you are conceding it, by asking whether Congress is supposed to stop the Court from doing whatever it wants. The answer is of course that they have no power to do so, in fact, no real power at all, and thus controlling them does not matter. You then asked a ridiculous non sequitur of a question about whether I am an American. I am, but what earthly difference would it make if I were not? I guess when you have lost the argument, the only thing left is to launch baseless ad hominems against your opponent.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Nonsense. You said…

            “You claim that the left only won their significant victories when they controlled Congress.”

            And President.

            Are YOU sure you are even of American nationality… Do YOU understand American Government as laid out in the US constitution?
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            And they do nothing with this “dominance”. Ryan owns congress and passes a spending bill like we’ve never seen before. Obamacare still exists, and can even be used to force people to violate their own religious beliefs, unless a court case bails them out. The borders remain unsecured, the laws around illegal immigration and deportation remain nutso, and the agencies tasked with enforcing these laws are MIA by design. I guess…taxes are low?

            Our debt balloons.

            The government of North Carolina, by the way, is quite Republican, and passed a nice bill – “businesses don’t have to have trans bathrooms if they don’t want”. But because the culture war has shifted, many big businesses immediately disavowed the state. Despite the low taxes secured for them by the Republican Party (or perhaps because of their failure to secure sufficiently low taxes), these businesses are all too willing to signal their virtue at the expense of North Carolina’s Republican-dominated government.

            Need I go on?

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Yep, you bet we got problems. But WHY do you think a failed man that won’t divulge his tax returns… dodged the draft… beat his wife… engages in impulsive & bizarre conduct… cheats his business partners… stiffs his vendors on the average of 3 times weekly… lies routinely…

            Why do you think such a decadent person is going to fix anything?
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Let’s go into the worst-case situation: he’s not. What’s…the problem, here?

            We know that Hillary will only act to further push America down the slope. The one thing you can count on Trump to do is not push forward an amnesty of 11 million illegal immigrants with more to follow. By the time whatever impotent conservative savior you’re dreaming of has taken office, Texas will be the newly minted blue state (call it Tex-Mex lol) and he will have no chance.

            If you believe in the power of the Republican party, then all you need is for the president to not veto their legislation, right? Trump will be quite amenable to that I’m sure. If your lot can hold onto congress and the states, then you really just need the president to be not a leftist and you can do whatever you want – assuming the Republican Party isn’t still a freaking joke. Which it is. But you seem to think otherwise, which means you should be wildly enthusiastic for Trump.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Nonsense.

            Trump is a “my way or the highway” petty would-be dictator – he will not get along with Congress. His lies and threats are not forgotten

            Consider: Trump going after Kasich & Cruz
            Donald Trump plans to create and fund super-PACs specifically aimed at ending the political careers of Ted Cruz and John Kasich should either run for office again, after both snubbed the Republican nominee during his party’s convention this week, a person familiar with Trump’s thinking told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.

            The plan would involve Trump investing millions of his own money –perhaps $20 million or more — in one or two outside groups about six months before their respective election days if Texas Senator Cruz or Ohio Governor Kasich stand for office again. The person said Trump is willing to set up two separate super-PACs – one for Cruz and one for Kasich – and put millions into each.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-22/trump-would-fund-super-pacs-aimed-at-taking-down-cruz-kasich-iqybu9m1

            Consider: Trump going after Ryan
            Republican front-runner Donald Trump threatened House Speaker Paul Ryan during his Super Tuesday press conference, saying the Wisconsin Republican would pay a “big price” if he refused to get along with him as president.

            “Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well, but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him,” Trump said. “And if I don’t? He’s gonna have to pay a big price, OK?”
            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/02/trump-threatens-paul-ryan-says-speaker-will-pay-big-price-if-he-gets-in-his-way/

            So… YOU think threatening & backstabbing necessary allies… is going to obtain their support?
            HB

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            I would be glad to see Cruz and Kasić gone (can the latter even run again, though?), but Ryan most of all. You’re accusing *Trump* of backstabbing *Ryan*? Only the hardest core of #NeverTrumpists are going to see it that way.

            Ryan is acting like a powerbroker, showered by attention from the liberal media, but Speakers of the House really aren’t that important. Let us not forget that the longest serving GOP Speaker in recent times is a pædophile, clearly blackmailed his whole political career. In this time, the GOPe in Congress covered up a gay page molestation scandal.

            Now your neocon buddies constantly put Lindsey Gay-ræyuhm on TV constantly to call for war with the rest of the world. Do you not see what a farce your faction of the party is?

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            LOL !

            Ryan is the 3rd in line to the Presidency. YOU may not like that, but that is law. That is very substantial.

            As for what my ‘party’ is… Trump is not a Republican – he is a fake. The Real Republican Party is still fine – just suffering a bad case of contamination from the trump sleaze.
            HB

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            He won’t be Speaker after January. You may not like that, but that is a fact.

            The GOP has changed. It nominated a candidate who actually appeals to the base and not the donors. Get over it.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Hehehe. sure.

            You lord trump leads the historical record for being disliked. Even hillery clinton… beats your lord trump. That’s pretty low.

            Keep huffing & puffing, junior. You are a hoot!
            HB

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            You’re repeatedly writing “you” for “your”. And it’s “Hillary”.

            I know old blowhards can’t spell, but c’mon…

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Don’t let the little things bother ya, junior. Like I don’t let YOU bother me – you are just entertainment.
            HB

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            You think Trump won’t get along with Congress? What, like that SOB in the White House does now? Like Clinton?

            I suggest to you that if Trump takes the White House with a GOP-led Congress, their opposition to him will be orders of magnitude greater than it has been for the last 8 years or would be toward Clinton. They would find their voice in a way not seen since Reconstruction.

            But you’re probably too busy looking out for boogey-men, so this won’t make sense to you.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Maybe… next time… your lord trump ought to try running without insulting people… running without lying about & to people….running without being too lazy to learn the issues… running without ignoring the advice of experienced people.

            eh?
            HB

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            That’s weak even for you. “Let’s just leave it to the pros.” The ones who created all this? Nothing to say in actual rebuttal to that comment, instead of just blowing steam? I thought not.

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            You’re getting into “IknowyouarebutwhatamI” territory with your idiotic repetition and juvenile assholia. We’re done here.

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Unfortunately for your narrative, you’ve only managed to prove that Trump would obstruct certain members of a GOP congress at certain times, whereas Hillary would shut down the entire congress 8 years running with the media spinning a narrative of her as the golden queen and the Republicans as evil and terrible sexists.

            Here’s a thought: toss Trump a few bones on, say, immigration, national security, corporate taxes, you know, all those issues the GOP is supposed to be rock solid on, maybe replace Paul Ryan with another speaker, and just like that the GOP congress is good to go.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Here’s a better thought:
            Boycott both Clinton &Trump. Instead, write-in a presidential vote for Gov. Mike Pence… or vote the 3rd party candidate of your choice. And DO vote for Conservative Senators & House Members.

            Then we can more easily impeach either sleazy trump or sleazy clinton.
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Lol

            No, here’s the best idea: if you trust the GOP Congress so much, vote for the guy who won’t veto restrictions on abortion, regulations, bureaucracy, and immigration, nor act to raise taxes and let terrorists and gangs run wild. Simple, right?

          • Kenneth Schmidt
            Kenneth Schmidt says:

            What the Conservatives are doing wrong is knuckling under to the Mau-mau in the White House. They hold all sorts of offices but don’t do anything with the power they have, even by the standards of their own unsatisfactory ideology. Anyhow most of the elected public officials calling themselves conservatives are nothing of the kind, just chamber of commerce lame-o’s. What did Republicans do when they controlled both houses of Congress for years? Nothing. The alleged conservative Speaker of the House does everything in his power to keep the borders open. If that’s conservatism, then I would rather have a social disease.

          • Kenneth Schmidt
            Kenneth Schmidt says:

            And as for morals, the big conservative hero Reagan dumped his first wife for a cute little piece of “you know what” called Nancy Davis. I didn’t see conservatives condemning Reagan for this. Most folks on the right side of the spectrum are Christians, not necessarily members of some wacky holiness sect that permanently shuns people for moral breaches like unscriptural divorces.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            You expect the House and the Senate to violate he US Constitution? Pleas tell us… how they can act unilaterally?

            I await your answer.
            HB

      • maxime1793
        maxime1793 says:

        Trump is maybe 3-4% behind. You’re the one declaring him the loser because you want him to lose because you are no longer a Republican.

        You lost the party already, leave and form your own and stop sniping.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            Trump is *not* 6-7% behind. But if you want him to be …

            Reagan went from 8% down around this time in 1980 in a Gallup poll to 10% up. I agree that an 18% turnaround won’t happen these days, but frankly he can win the electoral college at a 1.5% deficit, so he only needs to move popular opinion a few points.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            No, it’s not 6-7%, then you’re claiming IBD/Rasmussen/LAT polls are 8% off but Bloomberg or Quinnipiac is absolutely accurate.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          Nonsense – trump has been losing from the beginning. RCP averages of polls.

          And trump is NOT favored by a majority of Republicans.
          HB

      • Rosie 73
        Rosie 73 says:

        Hey cupcake, I don’t think you quite understand the situation. You are the one that is out. Good luck getting back in.

      • Nick
        Nick says:

        I don’t like Trump. I never voted for him, and he was 17th of my 17 choices.

        However, I would vote for him if I wan’t in a deep blue state.

        Every person who isn’t in a deep blue state and runs off in a huff (as you are doing) are helping Hitlery. Hope you can live with that. DC won’t be coming after me. I’m already in conquered territory. Its your state they will accelerate the attacks on, and the muslim dumping to dilute your vote. I will say that for leftists, Hispanics are fine people, and I have no problem with them. I hope you find your new Islamic immigrant friends to be thus, but I doubt it.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          And those that choose to support a habitual liar, draft dodger, wife beater, that is absent on the issues is asking for the same kind of government.
          HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            Hitlery is a also a liar, has worked to destroy people’s lives (unlike Trump), physically abused Bill (including hurting him with a thrown lamp) (oh yes, where is your proof Trump beat his wives?), and is regretfully ready to supercharge government.

            But that’s who you prefer.

            At least with Trump, if he does something stupid, he’ll be impeached. They would do it in a heartbeat. Not so with Hitlery.

            So embrace your new goddess. She’ll enjoy having her way with the red states.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Please do your homework.

            I prefer neither:

            I recommend Boycotting both Clinton &Trump. Instead, write-in a presidential vote for Gov. Mike Pence… or vote the 3rd party candidate of your choice. DO vote for Conservative Senators & House Members.
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            What homework? I know what a Hitlery supreme court nominee will do. I know that continued immigration will destroy American jobs (my company just pre-laid off 50 employees and are having them train their Indian replacements). I know continued immigration will create a more leftist state (I live in California and have seen it happen).

            The Presidency will use the permanent bureaucrat class to impose regulations on YOU. We already live under those in California. They have resulted in massive poverty, jobs moving out of state, water shortages, past and future electricity shortages, farms going bankrupt, small businesses crushed. Hitlery will expand the California model to the red states, and then there will be no where to run.

            You suggest writing in a candidate (Pence, whom I like and who I will support in 2020 – if we get there) or a 3rd party candidate (both useless).

            You reject Trump. You reject the COS. Your solution is more of the same ineffective GOPe collecting large bribes in DC. Your logic is that of a five year old. Too bad you will pay the price.

            FWIW, I have a great job in a blue state, and as long as I keep my head down, will do fantastically. But I have several higher degrees and the blue state model works for me – at least in the short term. I however support my fellow Americans who are PO’d at what the GOPe bubble has created. Trump is a dumpster fire, but he’s a million times better than Hitlery, who IS a crook, a liar, and has destroyed the lives of everyone who has stood in her way for decades. I became politically active because of her persecution of Billy Dale, who she hounded and had prosecuted, and had to spend his life’s savings to defend himself. He wasn’t the first, and when she has power, he will be among the least.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            OK, big guy, if you were hiring staff for a new division/team/wing…

            Would you hire a known liar, that fails in details knowledge, and routinely insults people?
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            Straw man. If I was examining these two, I would throw both their files in the wastebasket and start over.

            But you only have these two. And looking at one has done over the other, I would have to choose Trump. If he was on my team, I would tell the women not to go in a room with him alone, but I know I could trust him to get something done, and he would be loyal to my company – not there to destroy it and anyone who would get in their way.

            Here, I did some homework like you asked.

            http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/22/unreleased-impeachment-era-evidence-against-bill-clinton-still-sealed-by-congress/

            Schippers, who is legally gagged from revealing what he learned about Hillary Clinton from the evidence in the room but can talk about his own investigation, said that she was “all over” her husband’s scandals.

            “From our investigation, she was all over it. She was the one who was orchestrating all the attacks on the people that she called ‘the bimbos.’ ‘There was another bimbo eruption so let’s go and destroy them.’ I talked to every one of those ‘bimbos,’” Schippers said.

            “And they were decent honorable good women. All of them were in some way threatened or attacked directly and I’ll tell you something. At one point someone said to me, ‘My God, how evil is that guy?’ and I said, ‘No, no he’s kind of a…boob. He just can’t control himself.” He added, “’But if you want to talk about real evil, it’s her.’ It was a terrible time. She was the one that did everything to destroy the women.”

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Again, BOTH clinton are trump are unacceptable. Once you come to grips with that reality… What you gonna do?

            I anticipate a time in the next 4 years of a failed Presidency – by either clinton or trump. Potential for Impeachment is high. Congress and tump/clinton will be at extreme loggerheads. Emergencys will be happening in America we never thought we’d see – at least, the kiddies. I see it as almost immaterial which sleazeball gets elected, as long as Republicans retain the House & Senate. Then we just wait…

            But if we continue to embrace sleaze, corruption, lies, and greed in a president… that will continue the decadence & decline.
            HB

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            And that ‘one’ will be no better than the other.

            And YOU will have degraded yourself, and added to the corruption that is consuming America.
            HB

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Replacing one corrupt candidate/party… with another corrupt candidate/party… does nothing to fix the problem.

            YOU just perpetuate bad & corrupt government.
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            One candidate perpetuates, one candidate cements.

            And, I may say, you are the one who rejects the only possible reasonable solution out of the impasse. The COS.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Hehehe, you ‘may say’ what you wish. But that does not change the fact that both hillery & trump are corrupt… and unfit to be president.

            You just can’t admit such… and act accordingly. so… You will perpetuate the sleaze & corruption.

            No change with you.
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            Your logic is that of a wishful five year old.

            A: Hillary is elected, corruption is institutionalized (it almost is).

            B: Trump is elected, corruption is somewhat mitigated, since he has some good people working for him, Congress will impeach him at the drop of a hat, and the press will be looking for any way to take him down.

            If Hillary is elected, she will smash any attempt to develop a COS. Trump won’t care, since he is merely here for his own aggrandizement.

            Sleaze there may be. But Trump won’t be actively trying to destroy America.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Like I said, you just… can’t… admit… that hillery and trump are equally bad. You just can’t admit, that trump has lost from the beginning. You just can’t admit that trump’s history shows he is very unstable… and very much likely to go off and start a war just to show he is ‘in control’… and to use the IRS, FBI, EPA, DoJ to persecute his enemies.

            Face it, you have a loser as your candidate. If trump were to become ‘president’… he would be above the law… unrestrained… unstoppable… unaccountable for 4 years.

            Sorry, America can not take this risk.
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            See, I don’t think they are equivalent. So I don’t need to admit anything. I don’t think a clown and lecher is worse than someone who will actively destroy the constitution. Not even close.

            A small minority (of which you are one) does, and you and they will help ensure that the more evil and hateful of the two takes power.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            A piece of advice for you… learned over long years of experience: You can best judge a would-be politician by watching what they do when they think no one is looking…

            Mr trump, if elected president, is above the law… mr trump could do anything he wishes to do… including starting a nuclear war… mr trump can maintain complete secrecy in his actions… mr. trump can use the FBI, the IRS, the DoJ, the EPA… along with the national enquirer… to persecute his ‘enemies’ that he rants about every day.

            Trump is a dangerous man. I would think twice if I were you.
            HB

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            Since I’m in California, my vote is useless anyway. The left imported a leftist population (who are otherwise great folks, but stuck in the ways of their home countries) and now California has become a fascist state. The one – two punch of having Trump give some breathing room while the very strong R legislatures get out the COS agenda is the only hope I see.

            Nixon wanted to use the FBI and IRS. They laughed at him, because at their base, almost all govt employees are creatures of the left. The alphabet soup groups you named are all very left now (the EPA? I worked with the EPA! they would laugh at Trump!) and would sneer and refuse to do his bidding.

            Trump only need make one mistake, and the R’s will gladly impeach (and the left would join in, because they hate him too). The press will hound him.

            And no, I’m not afraid of him nuking Russia. I am afraid of Hiltery though…

            https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-believes-that-hillary-clinton-will-start-a-war-with-russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/

            And if she doesn’t she’s more likely to use the alphabet soup agencies as her minions, and they will gladly join in to obliterate any resistance to their rule.

            Really, your logic isn’t just poor, but twisted as well.

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            PS, I should mention that there will be a President whatever way I vote. But one is hopelessly evil and corrupt and the other is a schmaltz. It doesn’t disturb my honor at all to vote for one, since I know the other person will hopelessly destroy the union.

          • BIGtimSullivan
            BIGtimSullivan says:

            Not only is your point of view fatally flawed, you don’t even respect your own time or vote. Sad!

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            There are conservatives in the Senate and House? I guess there are a few … and they back Trump!

            Let’s replace McConnell with Sessions.

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Absent on the issues? Immigration, regulation, and the security of our nation – those are three mammoth issues that he’s here on 100%. And he seems to have had a legitimate medical condition, so he’s not a draft dodger; I can’t find any reports of him beating his wife, so he’s not a wife beater, and all politicians lie.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Draft dodger:
            “Asked why he didn’t serve, Trump said, “I had student deferments and ultimately had a medical deferment because of my feet. I had a bone spur.” But Trump said he did not recall which foot was injured and instructed reporters to look up his records.
            http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-ignores-draft-deferment-questions-after-criticizing-mccain-vietnam/

            Wife beating:
            Actually, there is only one candidate in 2016 who has faced credible charges of sexual assault: Donald Trump, whose first wife Ivana swore in a divorce deposition that he ripped out her hair and raped her (an accusation she recently withdrew). Perhaps Trump should disclose those divorce papers
            http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/joe-conason-truth-donald-trump-old-mud-article-1.2652509

            And there is more…

            Obviously, if you don’t like lying politicians, don’t vote for them – unless…
            HB

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            Draft dodger:
            “Asked why he didn’t serve, Trump said: I had student deferment and medical deferment”.

            Listen kiddo, the military doesn’t want people that can’t run and will need expensive medical treatment before they even finish boot camp. I can’t believe I have to explain that to you.

            Wife Beating: Trump was given a bad medical recommendation which messed up his hair by his wife and ripped some of hers out; she retracted the claim of rape. None of that, of course, is “beating”, especially the hair part.

            No – I just don’t mind some lying by politicians as long as I think they’re being honest on the issues I care about. Of course there’s a slight possibility that Trump will simply turn around and not implement any of his policies. But if he doesn’t, then he will be universally hated by all of America, and he will lose any political power he had left, not to mention damage his business even more. Trump has pushed all-in on the positions of immigration, national security, and “making America great again”. Hillary, on the other hand, will continue to receive support from about 40% of the electorate no matter what, because the media, who will support her to their dying breaths, will convince them that she is fighting for minorities and women and all that nonsense. And of course, she openly admits to having a private and a public position. So I don’t trust her at all.

        • Swisstoons
          Swisstoons says:

          “However, I would vote for him if I wasn’t in a deep blue state.”

          This can only mean one of two things: Either (1) you plan to sit out this election altogether (and to hell with the Senate and House), or (2) You will fill out your ballot and (for reasons I can’t imagine, given what you’ve said) leave the section on presidential candidates unchecked.

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            Uh, electoral college? Trump is a dumpster fire. I would choke down a vote for him if it made a difference, but I will be voting for the moron Crazy Gary, so that the libertarians can get more money next time and maybe act more like adults. But I spend my time telling those who are better positioned to vote for Trump. Because as smoldering and stinky as he is, he is a billion times better than Hitlery.

            I’m in so blue a state that I haven’t seen a R win in my area in decades. Still I continue to vote.

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            I understand Nick’s dilemma. In my home state I have a choice of democrat a or democrat B for Senate, the same for state assembly, and a well entrenched safe district Obama bot for Congress vs. a poorly funded joke Republican who has no chance because of the way the district was gerrymandered.

            Also, the amount of illegal migrants being automatically registered to vote as they get their drivers’ licenses rigs the game even more. I’ll vote but my vote really doesn’t count except on the various propositions, which is why I even bother.

            BTW, this is what the whole country’s got coming if Hillary wins.

      • Oddstar7
        Oddstar7 says:

        Gladly. I have voted for every Republican on the ballot in every election since I could vote, but if Trump loses, I will never vote for another Republican. Good luck ever winning an election again without people like me.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          That’s fine – if you willingly support a draft-dodging, wife beating, liar like a ‘donald trump’, the democrats deserve you.
          HB

      • whburgess
        whburgess says:

        We shouldn’t be so acrimonious with these people. Give them room to save face. They were conned, and surely that has to be a very unpleasant thing to experience and very difficult to face up to.
        They were first conned by people they thought most on their side: The radio screamers who got rich breaking Reagan’s 11th commandment by convincing them that the vast majority of Americans think like they do so the only reason we weren’t getting our way is because, for some miraculous reason that never needs explaining, all the representatives we sent there (most of them after Obama was elected and many teapartiers) all turn out to be weak or easily corrupted. They screamers prepared the ground for the con and were swept up in the whirlwind.

        So, they were impatient, Trump knew how to play them, and he did. This will be a passing phase if we can just let these poor hard working conned people save face. Part of this will, unfortunately, be allowing the right wing screamers (the real villains on our side here) to save face in exchange for them starting to put their country before their pocketbooks.

      • Matt_SE
        Matt_SE says:

        Well, that’s not entirely fair. I think they weren’t liars. I think they were delusional.
        They actually believed Trump could win, but they were wrong.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          In all fairness. you are probably right for some…

          But I well remember debating with some trump supporters and they knew exactly what they were looking to do. If their man could not win… scorched earth everywhere.
          HB

          • Matt_SE
            Matt_SE says:

            That’s just sour grapes and the Trumpkin moving of goalposts. Like the man himself, their goals change based on their current fortunes. Because there’s no point in burning down a party you’re about to take over.

            It’s just self-serving convenience and rationalization.

      • Brother John the Deplorable
        Brother John the Deplorable says:

        You sound as though you didn’t read this or any previous essays in this thread going back to “The Flight 93 Election.”

        Meanwhile, though, the time when you could escape blame is over. You don’t get to trash the GOP nominee two weeks before the election and not own a Clinton presidency and all that goes with it, if that’s how it shakes out. Uniting behind the idea of opposing such a thing ought to be so brainlessly obvious that at this point, right now, with 16 days left, there is no other choice.

        So, I hope you and your principles will be very happy together, but frankly, you can go to heII. And if those of us who support Trump — and those of us, like me, who didn’t — leave the GOP as you suggest, there won’t be anything left but a husk after three weeks.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          LOL !

          Your lord trump… is whining all over the place about how ‘the system is rigged’. Evidently, trump thinks anything that does not bow & scrape to him… is rigged. Trump must think his chances are pretty bad if he is mega-whining at this stage of the game. Hehehe…

          And YOU… Hehehe, you are already looking to find someone to blame for your own foolishness. Face it, bub – Trump lost to clinton or sanders from the beginning. We could have won 2016… if it hadn’t been for you trump people.

          All your whining isn’t going to change the facts.
          HB

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            First of all, your writing sucks.

            Second, not “my lord.” No man is my “lord,” and furthermore, I just said that I didn’t vote for him in the primaries, d umbass. This isn’t a question of bowing and scraping. It’s a question of uniting against the single most destructive force in the USA today by choosing the alternative. Even a child can do it. Apparently, you’re not up to it though.

            Third, those “facts” are pure nonsense until the one taken on November 8. Every poll taken until then is designed to influence that one, and in one way and one way only. Doc Brown told Marty that the future isn’t written. But we can erase that fax if you “never Trumpers” pull your heads out of your asses.

            Fourth, as far as “rigging” goes, this is what I said at NRO a while ago:

            Not rigged?

            The Dead have voted Democrat persistently since 1960, as have felons, illegal aliens, and various nonexistent persons — and that’s just national elections.

            The entire press corps is lined up behind the Democrat party. It would take orders of magnitude less time to name the exceptions.

            The entire university and public school system preaches the virtues of Democrat government.

            The cultural winds blow very generously at the backs of Democrats.

            The entire federal welfare state, immigration service, IRS, and
            administrative state is a very big thumb on the Democrat side of the scale, exactly as FDR designed it.

            Fear of the knock on the door at 3 AM and the re-education camp are, for all practical purposes, the only parts of the USSR’s official party that haven’t been fully implemented yet.

            Half the media figures and elected officials members of or ordinarily backing the GOP have deserted Trump, apparently favoring the election of someone who belongs in the Supermax in Florence next to Robert Hanssen because Trump is just so … so .. *rude*.

            Not rigged? Sour grapes before the election is over?

            This is weak even by NRO 2016 standards, whatever they are.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Sure… hehehe.

            Keep whining. But it does nothing to atone for your embracing lies, immorality, incompetence, cheating, and hate/
            HB

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            “Hate” is talk for children. So is “hehehe.” But then again, if Trump is so much worse in your mind than a Clinton — especially where lies, immorality, incompetence, cheating, hatred, and criminality are concerned — then obviously a child is what I’m dealing with here. Go away.

        • Martin Knight
          Martin Knight says:

          No one has done a more thorough and comprehensive job of trashing himself and sabotaging a campaign more than the nominee.

          It was not the “GOPe”, NRO or even #NeverTrump that made Trump delay his fundraising, refuse to prepare for debates, refuse to mount up data operations, refuse to open campaign offices in battleground states, start stupid Twitter wars in the middle of the night, etc.

          Why can’t you see that?

          • Brother John the Deplorable
            Brother John the Deplorable says:

            I don’t know what your problem with me is. I didn’t vote for the man by the time the circus came to my town, he was not my first choice, he’s run a lousy campaign, and I understand that my first objective — observance of the Constitution — isn’t a priority for him, and indeed wasn’t really anywhere on the ballot. I also didn’t say “GOPe.”

            But, on the other hand, I believe Ann Coulter is right — if the debate over immigration/invasion is lost, or if amnesty is shoved through in the dark of the night, everything else we hold worthwhile will be off the table, forever. As such, it shouldn’t be hard to understand what put Trump out in front, since he was the only person on the ballot coming close to acknowledging such realities.

            Every time a primary election came around, Trump would say something, and everyone would swoon and shriek and clutch their pearls, and shout that, “this’ll finish him off for good!” And then he’d win, in (nearly? I dunno) all cases. This, to me, is proof that Coulter is right, and the invasion is the defining issue of our time, and the one upon which all else depends.

            In the meanwhile, though, two things remain undeniable: one, that every poll taken before the official one on November 8 is designed to affect that one by dispiriting all Clinton opponents. be they Trump supporters or Trump opponents, and by dividing the two camps. Two, anyone reading this site ought to have as his primary objective keeping Hillary Clinton as far away from any power as possible, since any person doing what she has done would be down the hall from Robert Hanssen in a stainless steel cell at the Supermax in Florence, CO.

            At this very, very late date, it ought to be absolutely vital that we ignore polls designed to divide and depress us for the sake of that Prime Directive. It is Join, Or Die time. All I want to see is unity behind the candidate, since there’s no other rational choice at this point. And as for that “Historybuff,” he’s a troll.

            So what’s the &$%ing problem here?!

    • Haga Akane
      Haga Akane says:

      NT-ers’ ignorance as to who is driving the Trump campaign is utterly shocking; with damned few exceptions, they think Trump’s backing is from neo-Nazis, rednecks who have never voted before and a mass of Republicans who just hate Hillary more than Trump. The majority of them honestly seem to think after a Trump defeat, the alt-righters will go to ground, the Bubbas back to their heroin and this mass of Hillary hating Republicans will come back into the fold (after purity tests and re-education).

      From my real life observations, this is delusional. Almost the NeverTrumpkins I know are profoundly unreliable voters ready to bolt for the Libertarians or even Democrats because of some perceived failing of the chosen candidate or plank of the platform. Trump supporters I engage with in real life are stalwarts who come to the polls every election cycle irregardless of disagreements. They’re much more likely to have in the past donated (smallish) sums of money to the party/candidates and actually helped out with campaigns. That is until now; a lot of Trump supporters I know are REALLY pizzed off at GOPe.

      It seems to me GOPe is going to have a rough time of it in the future if Trump loses. They’ll see their backing dwindle and their base mostly populated by high maintenance types. Doesn’t bode well, but I just can’t get myself to care about that much…

    • GeorgeHanshaw1
      GeorgeHanshaw1 says:

      There is no ‘unfettered power’ in a country with 350 million firearms in private hands, and no way to remove those firearms without actually precipitating the civil war the Left fears.

    • buddyglass23
      buddyglass23 says:

      “With center-rights, libertarians, neo-conservatives, and nationalists
      dividing the right-wing, Democrats will clean up in every election.”

      Doubtful. Our system abhors extreme imbalance at the national level. If the GOP cracks up, I would expect some new “roughly” 50/50 division to form. Maybe the GOP sheds the Trump crowd, moves left, and peels off enough moderate Democrats that a rough equilibrium is once again achieved. Notably, with both parties moving to the left. We’ll become the UK, with the Trump crowd taking the place of UKIP. That is, win positions at the state and local level, but only a handful in Congress.

      • maxime1793
        maxime1793 says:

        So the Dems become Bernie Sanders, the GOP becomes Hillary Clinton crossed with John Kasić, and the Trumpists becomes a rump third party movement?

        1) I agree that the electoral system produces 50-50 equilibria, but in transition this takes a couple decades.
        2) The quote is still correct, if the right-wing is divided the (current) Democrats clean up at every election. Your alternative is that the GOP morphs into the nearly-forgotten New Democrats.
        3) Claiming the Trump faction will be left out is ignoring that Trump just won the primaries and there is little social base for liberal Republicanism. Likewise, there is little indication that the Sandersite socialists are going to seize the apparatus of the DNC anytime soon.

        • buddyglass23
          buddyglass23 says:

          Re: #2, I think that if the Democrats start getting landslide wins every four years then the party will morph its platform as necessary in order to compete. Not sure this takes a couple decades to happen. Of course, this assumes its actually possible for the GOP to morph its platform in some way that allows it to compete (at the national level). It might not be.

          Re: #3, Trump won the primaries, yes, but in a fashion considerably less convincing than previous nominees. Trump was the favorite of somewhere between 25% (Iowa) and 45% (Nevada) of Republican voters. However, unlike in past years, those not voting for trump tended to really dislike him. So, I’d say that what I referred to as the “Trump Crowd” is at most 45% of the GOP, but most likely considerably less. My hunch is maybe…30%? 25%? Recall that at the beginning of the primaries none of the most (allegedly) damning stuff about Trump had yet to drop. I suspect that at least some of his supporters in the early primaries would now prefer to see someone else on the ticket, even if they’re still going to vote for Trump.

          Right now, about 45% of the country identifies as Republican, 45% as Democrat, and 10% as “Independent”. However, most “Independents” are actually fairly partisan and strongly favor one party over the other. There are very few voters who flip-flop from one party to the other from election to election. For expediency, let’s say the independents are split 50/50. So each party has 50% of the voting public.

          If the Trump contingent makes up 25% of the GOP, then that’s 12.5% of the voting public. To achieve equilibrium the remnants of the GOP would need to peel off the most moderate 12.5% of Democrats and/or Democratic partisans. The question is whether there’s some avenue for it to “moderate” its platform (read: move it to the left) that would appeal to those Democrats without alienating even more of its remaining non-Trump Republicans. Remember, this “remnant” we’re talking about includes the Ted Cruz Republicans. They won’t take kindly to any leftward shift.

          What remains of the Democratic party (minus the most moderate 12.5%) wouldn’t necessarily be run by Sandersite socialists. Though, that camp would clearly have its importance amplified.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            (2) Trump is already an adaptation. His positions on major issues are much more popular than Romney’s.

            (3) No, no, no, no, no, Trump did not win in a less convincing manner than usual. I debunked this statistically elsewhere in these comments. Do I need to copy-and-paste it?

            (4?) No, the country is far more than 10% Independent. That’s an approximation of independents who regularly vote and won’t be pinned down as leaning to one party or the other.

            (5?=3) No, no, no, no, no, how the Hell does Trump represent 25% of the party when he got 45% of the primary vote?

            You’re ridiculous.

          • buddyglass23
            buddyglass23 says:

            “2) Trump is already an adaptation. His positions on major issues are much more popular than Romney’s.”

            He’s about to do considerably worse than Romney did, running against an opponent that is considerably less well-liked than Romney’s opponent. Now, you can say, “His polices are popular but Trump the candidate is a major screw-up; that’s why he’s about to under-perform”. I’m skeptical, but maybe.

            “I debunked this statistically elsewhere in these comments. Do I

            need to copy-and-paste it?”

            Please. It’s a long set of comments. Trump’s favorability among the set of Republican voters is uniquely low. Possibly historically low. It is, however, astronomically high among the set of Trump faithful. Hence the huge rally turnouts. He’s polarizing. Instead of a candidate that’s vaguely acceptable to the majority of the party, he’s despised by a big chunk and loved by another chunk.

            “the country is far more than 10% Independent. That’s an approximation of independents who regularly vote and won’t be pinned down as leaning to one party or the other.”

            I was talking about the voting public. That’s all that matters when talking about two-party equilibrium. If you don’t vote you might as well not exist. About 10% of voters refuse to identify with the Republicans or Democrats. Actual voting records, though, show this group to be largely partisan one way or the other. They’re just averse to the labels.

            “how the Hell does Trump represent 25% of the party when he got 45% of the primary vote?”

            Easy to get 100% of the vote when nobody else is really on the ballot and/or campaigning against you, as was the case late in the primary season. Trump won 33% of the popular vote in the February contests and 34% on Super Tuesday. And, again, that’s before all the AH stuff came out, which I suspect cost him some support.

            In all honesty: If you polled a representative sample of Republican voters right now and asked them, “Is Trump still your first choice from among the candidates who were on the ballot in February, or would you rather have someone else at the top of the ticket?” How many do you think would prefer Trump?

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            2) I cannot account for what BS the Clintonite media have in store for the last days of the campaign, but I don’t otherwise foresee a worse result than Romney. I did an estimate last week and came up with a 3.9% Clinton lead – same as Obama beat Romney in 2012, but only a 298-240 electoral vote where Trump could win if every state changed by about 2.3% (so he has a favourable electoral field, unlike Romney).

            3) I had copied-and-pasted the primary results comparison of 2008-12-16 above while you were typing this comment.

            5) Trump got 33% in two contests in February (not incl. NV) – one against seven opponents, and the other against five. McCain scored in the 30s in both primary wins (SC-NH). Romney got 39% in NH and lost with 28% in SC. Both faced less serious competition.

            34% on Super Tuesday was a decent result (against four opponents) given that the mass plurality of votes were cast in Cruz’s TX (I remind you he only lost OK and TX that day). Deduct that, and he was at 38-39%. This is totally normal and in line with other nominees facing real, multi-candidate competition.

            <>

            —If you phrase it as Trump vs. unnamed ideal choice then about 45% would choose Trump (in fact, there is polling data on this). If you phrase as Trump vs. concrete alternatives, 60-70% would choose Trump.

          • buddyglass23
            buddyglass23 says:

            “I don’t otherwise foresee a worse result than Romney.”

            I’d say the odds of Trump exceeding Romney’s 2012 EV total is roughly 50/50. The odds of Trump exceeding Romney’s popular vote total are lower. Also note that Trump is running against a much weaker opponent. So, to simply match Romney’s 2012 total is to do worse than Romney when the strength of competition is taken into account.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            The odds of Trump exceeding Romney in EV is 1:2, I think he will. The odds of besting him in popular vote in absolute per centages (47.1%) is low, maybe 1 in 4, but that’s due to higher third party totals. If you meant the odds of besting Romney’s defeat margin (3.9%) are 50/50, I’d generally agree. A couple days ago I’d say 40/60, now maybe 60/40, but we’ll see.

            “So, to simply match Romney’s 2012 total is to do worse than Romney when the strength of competition is taken into account.”

            Absolutely not. When you look at the sabotage of his campaign by the Republican establishment and Congressional leadership (it is easy to survive the defection of neocon media and probably also the sniping of Bushes and Romney, but the press runs with the constant criticism from Congress), total lack of financial support from the RNC, and the extreme media hit campaign, then consider that Romney had no such disadvantages and Obama went into the 2012 campaign with over 50% disapproval, then it is obvious Romney was a weaker candidate. Yes, Hillary is unpopular, but the media do not cover her corruption and her entourage plays rather more cut-throat than Obama’s.

            It’s not very honourable to sabotage someone in order to claim at the end you are more successful.

            Also, if you think the oppo research on Rubio/Cruz/Bush would have been insignificant, better think again.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            2016 primaries:
            Trump 45%
            Cruz 25%
            Kasić 14%
            Rubio 11%
            Carson 3%

            That looks pretty overwhelming to me. Trump only lost a handful of actual primaries – Cruz’s and Kasić’s home states, OK (borders TX), WI (concerted effort by GOPe/Ryan), and ID (Mormons). He won 33 and lost five.

            Now, if we want to be fair and subtract the contests that were not properly contested, then he won 24 and lost five and the vote was something more like this:

            Trump 42%
            Cruz 27%
            Kasić 14%
            Rubio 12%
            Carson 3%

            If we look at McCain or Romney and how they did in *contested* primaries,
            their showing was worse than Trump’s. Simply, since they were
            establishment candidates their opposition was under pressure to drop out
            earlier in primary season.

            Romney won all primaries together 52%-20% Sant – 14% Ging – 11% Paul. However, if we just take primaries before Santorum dropped out:

            Romney 11 primaries – 4.5 mln 40%
            Santorum 6 primaries – 3.1 mln 27%
            Gingrich 2 primaries – 2.26 mln 20%
            Paul 0 primaries – 1.2 mln 11%

            So, Romney did objectively worse than Trump, winning just 58% of primaries and 5% less of the vote against slightly less competition.

            McCain overall won 47% vs. 22% Rom 20% Huck 6% Paul 3% Giul 1% Thomp.
            However, if we only count through when Huckabee dropped out, the totals
            are:

            McCain 20 primaries – 7.34 mln – 42%
            Romney 3 primaries – 4.53 mln – 27%
            Huckster 5 primaries – 3.91 mln – 22%
            Paul 0 primaries – 790k – 4%
            Giuliani – 590k – 3%
            Thompson – 290k – 2%

            This is almost identical to Trump’s showing except that McCain won a smaller proportion of primaries (71% vs. 83%).

            There you go. Trump’s win *was* impressive.

          • buddyglass23
            buddyglass23 says:

            Looking at % of popular vote, McCain took 46.7% in 2008, Romney took 52.1% in 2012 and Trump took 44.9% in 2016. This obscures the fact that “the set of candidates more or less completely unacceptable to Trump voters” took a much higher percentage in all of these primaries. In 2008 it was McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul. Paul is the only guy I can see being seen as acceptable by the Trump wing of the party. He took 5.6% of the vote. In 2012 it was Romney, Santorum, Paul then Gingrich. Paul and Gingrich are likely to be acceptable to the Trump wing; their total % of the popular vote was 25.1%.

            Even if I grant that Trump won the primary in a fashion roughly equivalent to past nominees, that ignores the fact that he is disliked by a uniquely high % of the party. Can’t produce numbers for you, but I suspect that in 2016 the % of Republicans who are “holding their nose” and voting for the Republican is higher than it has been in quite a while.

            45%, i.e. the % of the popular vote Trump won in the primary, is the absolute cap of his hard-core support. That is, the portion of the GOP that might “defect” and become its own separate political entity. And, like I said earlier, that’s probably too high, given I suspect the AH tapes (and other criticism he’s received) has likely eroded some of that support. So maybe 40% on the absolute high end.

            If I re-do my analysis using 40% as the % of Republicans that defect instead of 25% then the neo-GOP would need to peel off 20% of Democrats. The result would be 20% of the country in the Trump party, 40% to the neo-GOP and 40% to the neo-Democrats. Obviously stealing 20% of Democratic voters is harder than stealing 12.5%.

          • maxime1793
            maxime1793 says:

            “In 2008 it was McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul. Paul is the only guy I
            can see being seen as acceptable by the Trump wing of the party. He
            took 5.6% of the vote.”

            —I am unclear as to what your statistical point is here. The hard-core Paulians don’t like Trump even if there is an overlap in the more ideological alt-right corner of Trumpists. Perhaps, ex-Paulians disproportionately chose Trump over Cruz, Rubio, and Kasić. That’s quite possible – but it doesn’t prove there was no basis for Trumpist policies in 2008.

            Note turnout was much lower in 2008 and 2012, frankly, fairly low by primary standards generally. McCain is unacceptable to ideological Trumpists, but I am sure many Trump primary supporters voted for him in ’08 since McCain assumed the relative position of the populist disliked by the establishment, the Bushies, and especially Conservatism, Inc. The candidate of the latter factions was clearly Romney and I doubt many Trumpists backed him in the ’08 primaries. Huckabee ran a campaign in 2008 somewhat in between Trump’s and Cruz’s so I don’t know how or why he would have been so unacceptable.

            ” In 2012 it was Romney, Santorum, Paul then Gingrich. Paul and Gingrich are likely to be acceptable to the Trump wing;”

            —Why not Santorum who deliberately veered toward economic populism (even if opportunistically)?

            “but I suspect that in 2016 the % of Republicans who are “holding their
            nose” and voting for the Republican is higher than it has been in quite a
            while”

            —I don’t dispute that. I expect about 12% of Republicans will defect to Clinton or Johnson and another 10% will vote for him but not approve of him. This is an effect of the intra-party sniping he has faced. However, I expect he will do better among Independents.

            “45%, i.e. the % of the popular vote Trump won in the primary, is the absolute cap of his hard-core support.”

            —As an intra-party faction, perhaps, but that doesn’t permit the following conclusions:

            “If I re-do my analysis using 40% as the % of Republicans that defect
            instead of 25% then the neo-GOP would need to peel off 20% of Democrats.
            The result would be 20% of the country in the Trump party, 40% to the
            neo-GOP and 40% to the neo-Democrats.”

            —No, no, no, no, no. If you had some Rubio-Kasić-Bush neoconservative/neoliberal, open borders, ultra-free trade GOP with the Trumpians outside, probably most of the Cruz base would stick with Trump, or at least a large minority.

            45Trump = 40T 5R
            28Cruz-Carson = 13T 15R
            27Rub-Kas-Bush = 1T 26R
            Total = 54Trump 46rump GOP

            So even if the neocons take the dwindling New Democrat vote or make inroads among the more fiscally conservative identity politics weirdos, you’re looking at something like 42 Dem – 31 GOP – 27 Trump, with the Deep South’s preference for Trump giving him an electoral college advantage.

      • Scott Carroll
        Scott Carroll says:

        Democrats can count on roughly 40% of the electorate to be lock-step voters, voters for whom the appellation “Republican” is as distasteful as the descriptor “pedophile.”

        Another 40% of the electorate is what could loosely be described as “right-leaning.” But these folks are nowhere near as attached to the Republican label as the 40% mentioned in my first paragraph are attached to the Democrat label. Some will follow Trump to whatever nascent party he endorses, some will stick with the Republican Establishment, still another faction might be uncomfortable with both and form a new Constitution Party. The point is the 40% that is right-leaning will be split at least two, possibly three ways. Even if what is left of the Republican Party grabs a lion’s share of independents it still won’t be enough to overcome the Democrats’ 40% plurality.

  4. Severn
    Severn says:

    National Review has been marching briskly to the left for the last twenty years or so and is now indistinguishable from the Progressive movement in both tone and substance. Once upon a time that magazine saw it as its role to sell conservatism to the GOP, especially the GOP leadership. Today it sees it as its role to sell the Chamber of Commerce viewpoint to conservatives.

    The Managerial class, whether Republican of Democratic, has much more in common with the members of its own class than with people outside its class. Both NR style “conservatism” and ThinkProgress style “liberalism” share the belief that the country is best run by a technocratic “elite”. On the biggest of all political questions – “Who decides?” – Conservatism Inc and Progressivism Inc are in agreement with one another in their contempt for the American people and in their profound self-regard.

    • BurkeanMama
      BurkeanMama says:

      I subscribed for over 20 years. I stopped when some jr. editor threw a hissy fit about a rat pack joke and they lost Mark Steyn. Watching their hysteria about Trump just put a period at the end of the idea that NR is a conservative journal of opinion.

      • sqeezx
        sqeezx says:

        I subscribed for most of 40 years. I was too young to understand the whole Bircher thing, too young to understand Lew Rockwell, shrugged uncomfortably at what the sainted WFB did to Buchanan. Then l’affaire Derbyshire: Should have been a clue, but I stupidly hung on until Steyn got kicked to the curb, and then the pleas to renew went straight into the trash. And then when NR went rabidly anti-Trump and anti-working class (looking at you, Kevin D. Williamson), I deleted the bookmark on my browser. And Goldberg thinks I’m coming back? No subscription, no page views, no sugar daddy – no NR.

        • JClarke
          JClarke says:

          What did they force Steyn to resign for? I recall it was for quoting a classic joke, which used a slang term for homosexuals, in a piece defending Phil Robertson in December of 2013. Speaking of Social liberalism. A NRO editor Jason Lee Steorts wrote a “Conservative case for gay marriage”. Also NR ran an article by reporter/writer Katharine Timpf attacking Mike Huckabee and Phil Robertson for using ‘controversial’ figures of speech. BTW Check this website to track NR’s traffic http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nationalreview.com Terrible metrics. Tanking in every way. I visited the website shortly, and saw that they were again offering a free 9 month digital subscription. Last November I signed up for a free 9 month subscription. It was a 60th Anniversary offer. They’ve been giving everything away for almost a year. Sad!

      • teapartydoc
        teapartydoc says:

        I dropped NR when they started pushing pot and treated people who were hesitant about legalization like heretics.

      • Nick
        Nick says:

        Oh yes. Jason Lee Steorts. Rich Lowery’s secret gay lover. The “man” has written 10 articles (by the count of NR’s own search engine) yet was allowed to verbally attack a man whose shoes he was unworthy of shining. I’m with you – that’s when I realized that NR was lost. I still liked McCarthy, VDH, and even Goldberg, but Jonah has now dropped out of that (his NeverTrump nastiness is the result of Trump insulting him at the beginning of the campaign).

        He attacked Larry Arn in a debate recently as well. Goldberg truly is nasty – Larry Arn understands things in ways that Goldberg never could, and he also isn’t worthy of shining his shoes.

      • BIGtimSullivan
        BIGtimSullivan says:

        For those who missed “Radio Derb” from the NR of past, he is now to be found on vdare.com
        Thankfully, for every journal I no longer miss to support, there are many popping up that I do. This one, being another excellent example.

      • Severn
        Severn says:

        Nor very right wing at all. One only has to have a memory of where National Review once was and the ability to notice where it is today. I was a regular NR reader back in the 1980’s, and todays NR is not only way to the left of where NR used to be, it’s to the left of where The New Republic used to be.

    • Mike D'Virgilio
      Mike D'Virgilio says:

      Very nicely said, Severn. I feel like I’m in some Kafkaesque alternative universe. How could those I’ve trusted and agreed with for so many years become my enemies almost overnight. I think you answered my question with your technocratic “elite” assertion. From the very beginning NR has always been dubious of the hoi palloi; it took Trump to finally reveal their true colors. I’ve always been a huge fan of Goldberg. Got to meet him several times, and have some adult beverages with him. He’s brilliant! He’s also proved to be an absolute moron. It only goes to show that genius doesn’t necessarily lead to perspicacity.

      One more thing. The tens of millions of us who have embraced Trump, even if he was not our first choice, will NEVER go back to the way things were. Those days are over, forever. This is true whether Trump wins or loses, but if he loses it could get very ugly.

      • BIGtimSullivan
        BIGtimSullivan says:

        We all should have known, anyone arrogant enough to think his readers need a weekly update on the travails of his family pet emailed to us in a newsletter might be suspect.

    • BIGtimSullivan
      BIGtimSullivan says:

      National Review is slowly ridding itself of older, better paid writers that can’t be relied upon to tow the company line. It’s using the US academia/silicon valley model: replacing with cheaper, more malleable labor. There is not one NR writer 30 or under that has a decent word to say about Trump. Those kind of odds are not possible.
      Twitter for all it’s negatives, shines a light on the character of it’s users. I aligned with the right for many reasons, but one was I couldn’t stand the snarky elitism of the “Pajama Boy” class. What a surprise I had when I realized there were so many among the National Review/Weekly Standard crew.

  5. nrer
    nrer says:

    Mr. Trump has pointed the way: Term limits. The 1st Convention of the States should term limit everyone in the federal gov’t employ. And also take any increase in the debt limit away from DC to 3/4 of State legislatures. Grab power through Article V. Do a CoS > keep it simple stupid< with these 2 amendments Nov. 9, 2016

      • ishkabibble
        ishkabibble says:

        But you are,of course, reserving the bloody path if necessary. Second Amendment solution and such.

    • Historybuff
      Historybuff says:

      Term limits.

      Sure – we SURE don’t want any elected Government person to serve long enough to learn what the bureaucracy is doing… We want the Lois Lerners and Koskinens to run roughshod over America… with NO elected oversight that understands what is going on.
      HB

          • BIGtimSullivan
            BIGtimSullivan says:

            Schumer has an amazing coalition of the richest, best educated of his own clan and the poorest, least educated of the clan his clan marches around by their ears. He’ll die with his Senate seat. That doesn’t mean others haven’t created barriers to entry that are un-American or even illegal. Term limits would be great.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          If his voters like him, they should be able to keep him.

          I know that runs against trump dogma… but that is Freedom.
          HB

      • Nick
        Nick says:

        Ah, the sign of the GOPe. You can’t even support the one thing that could save this country. I find it fascinating the number of anti-trumpets that coincide with disparaging the COS movement.

        You can’t be taken seriously, because you offer only more of the same.

  6. LCDR
    LCDR says:

    For a very long time, I reflexively supported the Republican candidates with the idea that they were defenders of the right, the Constitution, the very principals that have made this Country great. But over the years it has steadily dawned on me that the people I was supporting, were not supporting me. Paul Ryan is a case in point. I voted for his Vice Presidency, but in the last four years I have come to realize that Ryan’s position is more akin to Hillary’s position than to mine. If Trump wins, I’ll stay a Republican. If he loses, I will at the least become an independent, but I would hope some smart people will organize another party which will support my positions. We’ll see come November 8th.

    • CruxAustralis
      CruxAustralis says:

      You have a good point there. Two things can happen after Nov 8. Trump wins (most likely) and the Republican Party of today will be transformed from within and a lot of RINOs will be kicked out. If Trump loses then the Republican Party will disintegrate and split into two entities, or most likely into two parties. One, an “America First” type party that will include true Republicans (as opposite to RINOs) as well as former Democrats and Independents who share that same vision of America and want a government that represents the people as the Constitution intended. It will become a major force in American politics. The other, I like to call it the “Leftovers Party” will be a smaller party with a mixture of RINOs, CINOs (c for conservative), the NeverTrupmers, and frustrated “political-gender-unknown” such as Ryan and McCain. These two and their likes will stay in that leftover party and accept the fact that they will play no significant role in future American politics. Alternatively some will switch and become Democrats (which is what they are anyway) in the hope that they can be elected to some office someday. I am willing to bet that Ryan will no longer be the Speaker of the House whichever way the Nov 8 election goes.

    • John Price
      John Price says:

      Ryan is the biggest disappointment in my voting life. more so then the vote i cast for clintons first term when i was a ute…

    • BIGtimSullivan
      BIGtimSullivan says:

      The more Independents out there, the better. It’s the best way to keep the Republican party honest. I’m a member of the NYS Conservative Party and even they have been completely uninspired in their support of Trump. Sad days indeed.

  7. RJones
    RJones says:

    Jonah Goldberg is an anachronism who should simply be ignored. If he poofed up his hair a bit and slid on some shiny purple pants he’d look like he was right out of the Hunger Games. We were deceived. Time to move on.

      • BIGtimSullivan
        BIGtimSullivan says:

        I’m so down on Goldberg right now, but it’s not fair to compare him to Megyn Kelly. She is an inexhaustible corporate climber with absolutely no core convictions, outside of which country clubs she wants to be a member of. Jonah hasn’t sunk that far yet…

  8. Historybuff
    Historybuff says:

    Trump is no Conservative… trump is no Republican.

    Hey, decius… You need to get out – go form your own party.

    Of course… you could have already done that rather than sabotaging the 2016 Republican year… but your sleazy trump would have gone NO Where… right? No excuse after Nov 8, 2016 – Get Out.

    Start your own party of sleaze… corruption… lies… populism… patronage – You are NOT wanted by honorable people.
    HB

      • Historybuff
        Historybuff says:

        “…consent of the governed”

        So, with trump’s 59% Disapproval… He loses.

        Get you boss outta here!
        HB

        • conservativechick
          conservativechick says:

          The consent of the governed cannot be obtain where fraud and deception have taken place.
          The voters are every bit as much defrauded by our propaganda media, as a customer on a used car lot that is sold a clunker.
          When you do not have access to free and fair information, you cannot make an informed choice.
          May I ask you. truly, because you used to be someone I agreed with quite often, what happened to you? I can understand disagreeing with Trump, you are obviously free to do so, but you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy denouncing him in response to every comment.
          Frankly, your comment pattern looks much like the leftists.
          Further, being a history buff, one would think you could discern the source of Democrat ideology, and the ends to which it leads.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Yes, your new ‘trump theme’ is that the elections are rigged and that is why trump loses.

            Don’t you think… that Conservatism starts with Integrity? That Conservatives should always tell the truth? That Conservatives live a life of personal integrity? Think about that… and those are just basic prerequisites…

            I think the Big Picture will tell us that what trump has done will be a major disaster for America. 2016 should have been a year when Republicans end up with control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency… and effectively the last 8 years of obama could be erased Instead, we ended up with a candidate that ALL indicators showed could not beat the democrats… and is a candidate that is fundamentally unfit to begin with.

            So, yes – I expect to hold trump accountable for this pending disaster. And if he wins, I will not tolerate a lying ‘republican’ president any more than I will accept a lying democrat president. Trum’s problems… are himself.
            HB

          • conservativechick
            conservativechick says:

            A) You are grossly mistaken if you think there was a chance in hell of Cruz winning this election. It means that you fundamentally misunderstand the electorate. You also misunderstand that Cruz would have been every bit as savaged as Trump has been. How could you not see that after what they did to Romney?
            B) You didn’t address my last point, which was the most important of all. How can you, as a history buff, fail to recognize the dangerous strain of leftism which has taken over the Democrat Party?
            If it wins, in the form of Hillary – it will be partly because people like you failed to correctly diagnose the problem, and direct your barbs at the proper enemy.
            Until the “leaders” of the GOP, identify Democrats as the hard left – and determine to fight them with every bit as much vigor as Reagan fought the Communists in the Cold War, this country will continue to fall. We are almost out of time to ever recover.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            You may wish to reinvent polling about Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/trump… but I am sure that is a matter of record if one wishes to research. I will rely on my memory of the RCP poll averages.

            Leftism in the democrat party? Trump as the ONLY answer to such?

            Have you ever read Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich”? Do you realize… Hitler rose in political power precisely because of the fear of Leftism (Communism) in Germany? The german people were more than ready to accept Hitler’s sleaze in exchange for ‘protection’ from Communism. Need I say more?

            And you fail to explain… why you so readily accept trump’s lies… corruption… cheating…. incompetence… lack of specificity…

            Why?
            HB

          • conservativechick
            conservativechick says:

            Yes, in the primaries – you don’t think the media would have savaged Cruz they way they have Trump?
            Trump may have been a Democrat at one time (so was Reagan by the way) but he has never been a leftist.
            “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Hitler
            Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party. Hitler was a leftist.

            lies – meh, all politicians tell lies, that makes them all equal. What specifically has he lied about?
            corruption – he openly tells the people that he had to pay to play. He exposed the machine. One of the reason they are so dead set against him.
            cheating – ?
            incompetence – snort
            lack of specificity – that is a lie
            https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

          • conservativechick
            conservativechick says:

            One thing more – have you read Trump’s plan for the first hundred days? Everything needed to start this country back on a path to prosperity and strength.
            I am judging this race based on policy – Trump’s policy of a border wall alone gives America a chance at a future. Open borders means the end.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            Yes, I have read trump’s ‘Gettysburg address’. As usual, he steals the greatness of others.

            You believe mr. trump – I do not believe sleazy trump.
            HB

          • conservativechick
            conservativechick says:

            This is an honest question – I cannot put my finger on why the NeverTrumpers have so much ire for Trump – and so little for Hillary, who is, without question, the most corrupt and venal person ever to run for office.
            She has no redeeming value whatsoever. She will complete the dismantling of the Constitution. And yet all your fire collectively (NTs) is turned at Trump and Not at Hillary.
            Can you at least concede that that is perhaps an inappropriate use of your time and energy?

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            OK.

            I am not a member of any organized ‘NeverTrump’ effort – my reasons for opposing trump have been stated… but nicely summarized by saying trump sabotaged what should have the best Republican Election year in decades.

            As for hillery? As I have stated for years… Hillery is despicable, a criminal, incompetent, and arguably anti-American.

            What you don’t understand… or perhaps accept… is that hillery clinton is a known politically corrupt politician that is running in her own party as what she is – a democrat.

            Donald trump is just as bad as hillery clinton, just has never had the courage to run for public office. But this year, trump chose to run as a Republican in a year that should have been a ‘given’ for Republicans… thereby sabotaging Republicans.

            Can’t say it any better than that – if trump had run as a 3rd party, I would be far less focused on his sleaze… knowing that a true Republican is running.
            HB

          • conservativechick
            conservativechick says:

            I don’t think you can justify your claim that Trump is as bad as Clinton. Trump is no choir boy, but his policy prescriptions are well designed to aid what ails the country.
            Hillary literally means to destroy this country to whatever extent she’s able.
            And if you think that any race against a Clinton would be a given or wouldn’t be covered in sleaze , I respectfully submit that you are being terribly naive. Were you around for the Clinton’s the first time? Have you heard about Clinton’s temper in private? Have you any questions about the mysterious deaths that seem to surround them? Aware of Hillary’s behavior toward the women that her husband victimized?
            I go back to my original point. I don’t think you really grasp the manner of adversary we are dealing with here.
            When I say the Democrats are leftists, I MEAN they are leftist, with all that that entails.
            Supporting any element of this leftism spells disaster.
            Here’s a one hour video on you tube from a defected KGB officer in the 80’s, that lays out how subversion works:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDg
            You’ll see step by step what the Democrats have done to our country.
            I’ve also read many other books on the subject, that I’d be happy to recommend.

          • Historybuff
            Historybuff says:

            With all due respect, you keep making the same mistakes… you continue ot believe that anyone that does embrace trump… is automatically for clinton. That is wrong, and you need to get over it.

            I have been watching the clintons… up close… since the early 1980’s. The clintons are nasty – as I have said many times… and hillery should be in jail… as I have said many times.

            As for Communism, I am sure I know a great deal more about such than you do.

            Trump has never held public office, or held the public trust. If he ever does… he will fail due to his secretive ways, disrespect for the law, and lack of maturity to think things through before shooting from the lip.
            HB

      • Historybuff
        Historybuff says:

        No problem – trump still needs to get out.

        Sleaze, corruption, abuse, incompetence is NOT what the Republican Party is all about.
        HB

    • Party of Lincoln
      Party of Lincoln says:

      HB, Trump disciples have a choice to make and judging by their participation here it looks like they’re going to form a new political party if they can’t have Trump control the Republican Party after he goes down in what now looks like a landslide.

      Let them go. Their hero handed Hillary the White House and it will be up to us to take it back from her, with or without them.

      • BIGtimSullivan
        BIGtimSullivan says:

        Not really. I could see a great majority of the people now supporting Trump getting behind Trey Gowdy in 2020 in a big way. Don’t underestimate the resilience of the American people. Especially Conservatives.

  9. cmryle
    cmryle says:

    “… the greatness of ‘Star Trek’ and ‘The Simpsons.'”

    Whoa, look out, a real intellectual here. Camus and Sartre, eat your hears out.

  10. Sgt.Friday
    Sgt.Friday says:

    I found this article just stunning and appalling. Charles Murray is the greatest social scientist living? We got rid of welfare, and what exactly transpired? Has Hr. Mus read Thomas Sowell, say, anytime? (Mus is Scandinavian for mouse.) He leaves people like Murrray in the dust. Talk about culture, he wrote a long trilogy on it, looking at the whole world. In Coming Apart, thanks be for small blessings, Murray finally admitted that culture matters. But here Hr. Mus is all about culture. What, more than fifty years after the fact, when Cultural Marxism landed on the beach with the legalization of abortion, divorce on demand, pornography and male homosexuality? Back to Thomas Sowell. He (and Walter Williams) are dismissive of the logic of Brown vs. Board of Ed on the ground that it implied that blacks cannot learn on their own. Indeed. If this is true, then Africa or China or for that matter America or Europe back in the day could never have become literate. Today, we had woman number 11, who said that Trump committed some kind of sexual transgression. He is thrice divorced. Again, it’s AFDC that is the root of all evil, per Charles Murray? This is psychotic crap. Hr. Mus may have a beef with the Cato Institute. And yes, the WSJournal has long been arguing for the importation of people, who will vote the kinds of policies, see Cultural Marxism above, because they are poor and want redistribution and Marxism has ALWAYS been about sexual license and redistribution, but then just say it. I don’t like the Cato Institute. I don’t like the WSJ editorial page. But don’t say that a racist, fascist, disgusting creep, who rips people off over and over again, is somehow God’s gift to humanity. Sorry. Goldberg and Kristol and French and Will come out of this as the winners. Everyone else will have a huge blot on their reputation until the day they die. And then afterwards. And since that day is coming let’s name some names. Hr. Mus, when his name becomes public. Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham. Sean Hannity. Bill O’Reilly. Rush Limbaugh. Some lesser lights. Byron York. Michael Goodwin has disgraced himself here. Roger Simon. David Goldman. A lot of people at the WSJ played hot and cold, even Bret Stephens, who is the personification of what people don’t like about this idiot libertarianism. If the Bible condemns homosexuality, and that amounts to hate speech, well, then, why isn’t Israel an enemy of human rights? Huh? Look. Fox News performed an abortion here. Or maybe several. The disgusting Roger Ailes helped sink lots of legitimate Republican candidates, Notably Cruz, who was the last man standing. And so they gave us this cretin,. Payback as they say.

  11. drbatman
    drbatman says:

    We are on the precipice of a very long lasting Progressive era. The electoral and political battles will be between the center-left of Paul Ryan, the “progressive left” of someone like Bill Clinton, and the extreme left of George Soros and Black Lives Matter. What remains of the true center and center-right, the libertarians, and conservatives will be mired in the narcissism of small differences and rendered impotent for many upcoming election cycles.

    It is a puzzle to understand how someone like Jonah Goldberg, who so well understands the intrinsic fascism of the progressives, would fear what I see as a “third party candidate running under the Republican banner” more than he does Hillary.

    It is from the “Flight 93” article that I understood that after the deluge to come we will still be the United States, but we will no longer be America.

  12. Mike Sammin
    Mike Sammin says:

    I don’t care about the “noble” arguments of the Never Trump conservatives. IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR TRUMP YOU’RE VOTING FOR CLINTON. No bullshit, no tortured arguments or weasel words. Just the obvious, NOT VOTING FOR TRUMP IS VOTING FOR CLINTON. Take responsibility for your actions.

    • Historybuff
      Historybuff says:

      Bunk.

      YOU forced the only candidate that could NOT beat clinton on us. FORGET the trump sleaze, trump lies, trump ignorance, trump immorality, trump incompetence – Trump could NOT beat sanders or clinton.

      And YOU trump cultists forced trump on us…. the 2016 loss is on YOUR shoulders.
      HB

      • Mike Sammin
        Mike Sammin says:

        I didn’t vote for Trump. I voted for Cruz. But I will never help to elect Hillary Clinton by sitting out the election or supporting a third party. That’s political suicide and a vote for HC.

        • s_c_f
          s_c_f says:

          You haven’t refuted HistoryBuff’s point. Nevertrumpers will not cost the election. Trump is losing because of people who are neither conservative nor liberal.

          • CruxAustralis
            CruxAustralis says:

            Trump is losing in your dreams :) If you just go by the polls up to a couple of days ago, take a minute a look at their sampling. They are clearly biased Democrats.

            Quinnipiac and MonMouth, so that they can hide their bias, stopped indicating the percentage of R versus D in their polls, just say “1007 likely voters” or “random sample of 805 registered voters”, wherever these are from.

            The ones that do give breakdowns:
            Reuters/IPSOS: 1,190 likely voters, 723 Dem, 643 Rep, 210 Ind.
            CBS: 1,189 registered voters, 401 Dem, 381 Rep, 407 Ind.
            NBC: 24,804 likely voters, 8,711 Dem, 6,961 Rep, 9,132 others (?)

            Now that we are nearing election day, polls started shifting to Trump simply because they can’t afford to show their bias any longer and remain credible.
            IBD/TIPP Trump +2, LA Times/USC Trump +1 or Tie, Rasmussen Trump +2, etc

          • Rob Miller
            Rob Miller says:

            These public polls are COMMISSIONED by the media. In other words, they’re hired to produce a certain result. Why would they use such small samples and vastly oversample Dems? And why else do you think politicians hire their own pollsters instead of relying on the publlic stuff?

            Here’s the real questions that will decide the election.

            Will Trump’s voters a significant amount of who haven’t voted in some time and who the pollsters AREN’T talking to outvote the illegal migrants, dead people and outright fraud in their urban fortresses the Dems are counting on?

            How many black voters are fed up with the Dem plantation and want actual change? If Trump gets 20-25% he might just end up as President. Remember, a lot of blacks and Latinos (a pretty varied group anyway) may say one thing publicly because it can be physically dangerous not to…but they might just end up voting their real self interest in the privacy of the voting booth.

            How many women, Jews and gays are both stupid and suicidal? Do they like the idea of being gay bashed, gang raped and scared to walk around or go to synagogue in public as they are in Europe thanks to Hillary’s pledge to bring in boatloads of ‘refugees’ from the most Jew hating, misogynist and gay hating countries int he world?

            And finally, how many idiot #nevertrumpers, when it comes to voting in private are going to use some common sense?

            We’ll know election day.

          • ishkabibble
            ishkabibble says:

            “Skewed polls” is so-o-o-o 2012. You’d think that variety of self-delusion would get old, but no.

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            I don’t think any poll can be relied upon. If you live in a Red state, you need to bring two to five non-voting friends to the polls and have them vote for Trump. If every Trump supporter did this, there would be no problem.

            I live in a blue state, don’t like Trump, but would vote for him if it would make a difference.

          • Nick
            Nick says:

            That isn’t true. In California, the dems have been rocking the illegal vote now for 15-20 years. That’s why I really encourage red and purple staters to vote for Tump. So they don’t get the system we have here.

        • Sam McGowan
          Sam McGowan says:

          If Cruz had won the nomination, we’d be seeing a big legal fight about his eligibility to be president. I live in Texas and know all about Cruz and his father. I applaud Rafael for becoming a Christian but before he did, he was a bigtime Castro supporter and Ted glossed it over. Ted has yet to release his citizenship documents. Even though he was born to an American mother, all foreign births must be documented. He hasn’t shown them because they’d show that he didn’t become “a citizen at birth.” He became a citizen BECAUSE of his birth when his mother filed the paper. “At” and “because” are not the same.

          • ron_goodman
            ron_goodman says:

            The only reason Cruz looks acceptable was that he hid in Trump’s shadow of crazy. He could not fare well in a general election.

          • ishkabibble
            ishkabibble says:

            You’re attacking Cruz for his father?? You do know of Trump’s fathet’s arest at a Klan rally, no?

          • Adobe_Walls
            Adobe_Walls says:

            A challenge to Cruz’s eligibility would go no where fast in the courts. To seriously entertain the notion that Cruz was ineligible would also throw Obama’s eligibility into question. No court in this land will do that.

        • John Price
          John Price says:

          absolutely Sam. Trump not only won but won big and if all these GOP clones showed half the energy supporting Trump rather then attacking him we , the whole party , would be up 25 points.

          • Martin Knight
            Martin Knight says:

            The reason Trump is down is because of Trump.

            This desperate attempt to shield him from all responsibility is pathetic.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          Hehehe…

          Your sleazy trump, and cultist followers, used lies like “Carson is a pedophile”, and “Cruz’s dad killed JFK” type silly stuff… and took advantage fo the OPEN primaries where non-republicans could vote. ow much of trump’s support… NOT Republican?

          And you NEVER, NEVER argued the issues… just slogans.

          So, get OUT. Take your LIES with you.
          HB

      • JLK
        JLK says:

        Sounds like most of the people here had another first, second or third choice in the primary. I know my husband and I did. Matter of fact we donated money to 3 other republicans. Now I’m voting for Trump. What is cultist about that?

        Keep in mind both Obama and Hillery have spent millions on internet trolls.

        • Historybuff
          Historybuff says:

          Frankly, since trump entered the primary, I have seen a lot more trump trolls. About as bad as back in 2008, obama trolls.

          People I talk to… will not vote for trump. My demographic is retired boomers for the most part.
          HB

          • BIGtimSullivan
            BIGtimSullivan says:

            You seem like a typical self-absorbed Boomer. Go watch The Big Chill again and let us enjoy this comment board without you for a while.

        • BIGtimSullivan
          BIGtimSullivan says:

          BINGO. From a Rubio supporter that was actually bombarded by crazy Trump supporters at the time, but didn’t go on a cry baby tour of leftist cable stations like David French, I listened and decided to supported the better binary choice. These folks making such large emotional investments in what is a basic hiring decision confuse me.

    • Martin Knight
      Martin Knight says:

      Responsibility, eh?

      Newsflash: Trump is 99% responsible for the current state of his campaign.

      No one has trashed himself or sabotaged his chances more thoroughly than Donald Trump.

      Jonah Goldberg is not responsible for Trump’s failure to set up offices in battleground states. Goldberg is not responsible for Trump’s late night Tweets. Goldberg is not responsible for Trump not preparing for the debates. Goldberg did not tell Trump to eschew any big data operation. Goldberg did not force Trump to stop Conway and Co. from doing oppo research on him so this Access Hollywood wouldn’t have caught him by surprise.

      When are you going to hold Trump responsible?

      If Trump loses, no one else is to blame except Trump and the people who voted for him in the Primaries.

  13. nrer
    nrer says:

    Governors Abbot and Walker could throw the “System” a loop by proposing an Art. V CoS on November 9, 2016. Just saying…..

  14. jmm64
    jmm64 says:

    Vote for Trump in huge numbers ,in every state, in every county and in every city. It will not matter if there are ineligible voters voting with a huge win for Trump. Get out the vote for Trump!!

  15. jack dobson
    jack dobson says:

    That doesn’t fully explain why he bothers to come after me—there are plenty with whom he disagrees even more who might as well not exist in Goldberg’s world. But it does partly explain it.

    I suspect the explanation is rather simple. If you are correct and obviously many of us think you are, then Goldberg and Conservatism, Inc., are irrelevant to contemporary political discourse. To acknowledge this is the Flight 93 election is to admit their irrelevance. I’m not as optimistic as you that even a Trump win can do much more than buy time to reorder and modernize our governing documents and the arrangement among the states, but I’ll take it. Conservatism, Inc. failed to storm the cockpit so many times it finally caught up to them. The National Review and Buckleyite conservatism are relics of the past and the thoughts expressed here and a few other places are the present and the future if there is to be one. It must be a bitter pill to swallow.

    You are a brilliant guy but responding to Goldberg and Murray (I don’t get him, either) wastes your time and lends legitimacy to opinion leaders of a “movement” that simply no longer matters.

  16. Jalamanta
    Jalamanta says:

    I don’t agree that Clinton is the end of the Republic, but I am certain that Jonah Goldberg sucks.

  17. s_c_f
    s_c_f says:

    Let’s face it, most conservatives will vote Trump. Goldberg is in a small minority. So are his friends Krauthammer and George Will. Most of the rest, some like me who wanted someone other than Trump to win the nomination (I wanted Cruz, or even Rubio), have decided Trump is the better of two options. Voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump is an abdication, it is utter stupidity, it is deciding to throw away one’s vote, to throw away one’s own small influence on the direction of the country. Heck, we know the other side registers illegals to vote, dead people, you name it. But a conservative intellectuals like Goldberg is too “principled” to make his vote count. That is not principled, that is stupid.

    • Sam McGowan
      Sam McGowan says:

      I don’t think any of the other candidates would have the support Trump does. Rick Perry might but he was knocked out by left-wingers with their fraudulent charges against him. Cruz is simply not eligible to be president and if he’d won, we’d really be seeing a donnybrook. I voted for Jeb Bush in the primary but then he withdrew before the election – and has since made an ass of himself.

  18. EddieWillers
    EddieWillers says:

    To criticize someone for employing a pseudonym is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The argument must stand by itself. It is either substantially correct or substantially incorrect. The character or motive of the proponent has nothing to do with the substance of the argument. People who employ ad hominem attacks are either fools or dishonest.

  19. conservativechick
    conservativechick says:

    Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol et. al. do not own the conservative movement. As we must so often remind our liberal friends, words have meaning. If you are supporting the “fundamental transformation” instead of conserving, you don’t get to call yourself a conservative. Conservative = those of us who seek to preserve individual liberty, Republicanism, and our national identity. This movement belongs to we, the people, and not to the self-styled “”elite.” They have lost all influence at any rate. Their magazines are failing, they sit around pontificating to themselves only.

  20. Rob Miller
    Rob Miller says:

    Well, Publius, congrats first on an interesting essay. It’s fascinating because you get the causes of our current dilemma pretty much right but seem to perhaps misunderstand the remedy. And you’re far too kind. to these swine. They aren’t respectable’ in the least. Conservatism has accomplished nothing in almost 30 years and no longer means anything.

    I’ve always understood the #nevertrump position. They despise what they see as those ignorant peasants, the GOP voters. They despise anyone who isn’t part of their self-appointed elite establishment. And they (and in many cases, their donors) love the status quo of open borders, globalization and cronyism, and they know that with Hillary, it will be business as usual.

    It’s really that simple. The likes of Jonah Goldberg were never your allies. They just talked a good game.

    Now, when push comes to shove, is it any mystery how they’re acting? They despise us, just as they despise Trump because he represents an end to the con game. Does anyone doubt that if trump wins, his harshest opponents are going to be these same ‘conservatives’ in Congress/? They will attack him with a frenzy they never remotely exhibited towards Barack Husein Obama..

    What they are is our modern version of the Tories our Forefathers had to deal with. There’s not going to be any reconciliation. Because we’re going to remember.

    • ishkabibble