Trump's unfavorablity ratings

[Pb]

It's foolish to argue that a party shouldn't nominate a man the majority of the electorate hates?   

[roo_ster]

It's foolish to argue that a party shouldn't nominate a man the majority of the electorate hates?   ??

Mathematically speaking, yes.  The line:
"The non-<candidate_name_here> republican voters are in the majority but it is split among several candidates."
applies also to Cruz, Kasich and all other candidates who met the qualifications and ran.  More so than it applies to Trump, since he has the most votes & delegates.

It is the sort of witticism that sounds smart and sophisticated until you give it a moment's thought, when it crumbles under the lightest application of logic.

Just because you may(1) have Trump Derangement Syndrome does not mean everyone who has voted for another candidate in the GOP primary does(2).  Or that folk who currently have an unfavorable view of him hate him.  For instance, I voted for Trump in the primary, but do not hate Cruz and would vote for him before I would vote for Hillary(3).

Here's a hint:  The majority of folk who will cast their votes come November are not even paying attention yet.  Things will get frisky after the convention, when we see if those who lose line up behind the GOP candidate and more folk tune in.



(1) Equating votes against and unfavorablility as "hates" is telling, but not proof positive. 

(2) Most common second-choice for Trump voters: Cruz.  Most common second-choice for Cruz-voters: Trump.  Most common second-choice for Rubio voters: RuPaul.

(3) Probably.  This has been an hilarious and unpredictable election season, more full of possibility than in decades.  Who knows, the horse may yet learn to sing?

[zxcvbob]

I walked in while Wife was watching MSNBC.  They were talking about Trump, of course.  It wasn't even Chris Matthews.  "War on Women", blah, blah.  Started going on about him not trusting the government's unemployment numbers and then cut away to Richard Nixon ranting about the Bureau of Labor Statistics being a bunch of lying Jews.  The implication was pretty obvious.  I guess I'm an anti-Semite too because I don't trust the Obama administration's numbers.

I had to leave the room.  I wouldn't tolerate such yellow journalism if it was against Clinton or Obama!  (I'll admit I would tolerate it a little longer)

I'm also beginning to believe that the Republican party wants to lose the election, and whole primary/caucus/convention process is just picking the scapegoat.  I have no idea what their ulterior motive or long game is.

[Balog]

Republicans have the same long game as Democrats: increase the size and power of fed.gov and use it to enrich themselves. And if you don't believe me just look at what happens when they have the House Senate and Presidency.

[zxcvbob]

Republicans have the same long game as Democrats: increase the size and power of fed.gov and use it to enrich themselves.

I know that, but I really don't see how anything they've done in the past... 10 years or so really accomplishes that.  They are ceding more and more to the Democrats.  I'm sure I'm just looking at it from the wrong perspective; individual incumbents are probably enriching themselves (*expletive deleted*ck the party, what's in it for ME) and letting the Democrats handle most of the expansion of .gov for a while.