All errors should be reported to

Friday, January 22, 2016

Cillizza jumps on the Trumpwagon

On June 17, 2015, the day after Donald Trump formally entered the Republican presidential race as the 17th and last candidate, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post descended from the mountain and declared Trump's candidacy dead:
Among Republicans -- you know, the people who decide the identity of their party's presidential nominee -- Trump has a net negative 42 rating.  As in 23 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of Trump while 65 percent(!) had an unfavorable one.  Want even more? Compare the number of Republicans who feel strongly favorable to Trump (11 percent) to those who feel strongly unfavorable (43 percent). No one in the field is anywhere close to those numbers; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the only candidate other than Trump to have higher unfavorable than favorable ratings among his own party.
And it's not even (or only) his brutal image problems that doom Trump.  Just one in ten Republicans (11 percent) have no opinion of him. So, Trump is both extremely well known and extremely disliked by the members of the party he is running to represent.
You cannot and do not win anything when your numbers look like Trump's.  I can't say it any more clearly than that. There's nothing you can say or do -- not that Trump would ever even consider going on an image rehabilitation tour -- to change how people feel about you.  Republicans know Trump. And they really, really don't like him.
Back into the mountains went Cillizza.

Today, Cillizza has returned from the mountain:
The Iowa caucuses are 10 days from Friday. And Donald Trump, the larger-than-life real estate reality star, is — still — the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Not only has Trump not disappeared or imploded — as everyone everywhere predicted he would — he appears to be getting stronger in both early-state and national polling as actual votes draw closer.
At this point, Trump's path to putting the nomination away quickly is far easier than the one Hillary Clinton must travel to capture the Democratic nomination. That doesn't mean Trump is a sure thing just yet, but he has, without question, the best chance of any Republican running to claim the party's top prize.
I don't go by the polls. I go by the pols. How they behave matters. Trump and Bernie draw crowds. Hillary draws flies.

As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

Me? I do not care who Republicans nominate. I will vote in teh May primary and by that time, I expect it to be over.


  1. Not only has Trump not disappeared or imploded — as [ I ] predicted he would...

    FIFY, cc.

    Everyone (?), everywhere (?) predicted Trump would flame out? Hmmm, he doesn't include himself in that crowd and mention HE predicted Trump would fail. Of course, if you happen to remember he predicted that, you're supposed to excuse him because EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE did the same? Pathetic.

    When pundits make terribly poor predictions, why aren't they held to account for being sooooo wrong? Now I happen to believe journalists should have to give up one of their fingers each time they screw up badly. I don't care from which hand. Just chop if off. I believe they need to have some real skin in the game.

    1. "When pundits make terribly poor predictions, why aren't they held to account for being sooooo wrong?"
      I am working on that...

  2. I would vote for Trump in the general, Don, even though he is FAR from my favorite candidate. The Democrat alternatives are 100 times worse than Trump, and I learned not to sacrifice the lesser of two evils to my idea of perfect a long time ago.

  3. None of the pundits want to answer the very easy question: if Trump is not a conservative why is he polling so high with Republican voters.

    Answer: As a master marketer he saw the main issue that would ignite Republican voters, and cross-over voters. Immigration and migration, illegal and Muslim refugees.

    That issue is his one strength, the one issue where voters perceive that the politicians have betrayed them, and he has taken the side of the voters and not the calculating politicians or the greedy Chamber of Commerce types.

    Immigration and migration - who is for unlimited amounts of both and who is not - has become the shorthand way of identifying people - if you are against unlimited immigration and refugee migration you are patriotic and conservative by default; if you are for unlimited immigration and refugee migration you are unpatriotic and progressive by default.

    Hey - disagree with that all you want, argue facts and reasons all you want, do it until the bovines come back for breakfast - it will not change one thing of the shorthand I just described.

    Donald Trump's supporters do not care about your definitions of conservativism or any of your policy arguments - the definition they are working from is Patriotism and closing the borders. That is a gut-level decision, and all of your reasoning and rationalizing and argumenting is not going to change that.*

    *You want to have someone reconsider an emotional decision by appealing to reason? Isn't that sort of daft - just asking.

    - Mikey NTH

  4. By the way - before anyone asks why the Republican base has greater hatred towards the GOP than towards the Democrats?

    A perceived betrayer always garners more hatred than an open foe.

    Again - I didn't write the rules - I'm just commenting on what I observe.

    - Mikey NTH

    1. Two in a row on the nail! Good posts, MNTH.

  5. Why aren't pundits held to account? I think it has something to do with the whozits-Dunning effect effect described by Crichton wherein there is a built-in amnesia on the part of the reader even whithin the same periodical. The reader sees an article that he knows is complete crap and then goes on to read the next one like it's the gospel. A truly amazing phenomenon.