Trump Deniers Are A Hardy Breed!

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://opportunitylives.com/donald-trump-is-about-to-get-fired/

Now I'm not a "Trump Supporter".  I agree with Trump on a number of issues, but have problems with his style and some of his off-the-cuff policy proposals that are scary.  I wouldn't vote for Trump if the GOP primary were held today, but I'm still undecided.  (I'm a registered Republican, but an independent voter; kind of a RINO.)

But I thought we were beyond this kind of starry eyed thinking.  Trump has proven himself hardier than the field to date.  What makes people think that Trump will be flummoxed by a drop in the polls?  Indeed, as this article appeared, so did a new poll putting even further ahead nationally, and a new PPP poll putting Trump 3 points up on Ted Cruz in Iowa.  It takes a LOT of faith to believe that Trump will not withstand the Ted Cruz Flavor of the Month in mere popularity.

Don't get me wrong:  I do not believe Trump will be the GOP nominee.  He won't be the nominee because the GOP Establishment will not give away THEIR store to a guy who has no regard for them.  They will make the deal they have to make with Ted Cruz (who is, at least a GOP Senator) to stop Trump and mollify his base.  Then, and only then, will Trump be "overtaken".  The GOP Establishment's motivation is to ensure that the "dirty business" of nomination-brokering isn't done on TV in full view of the American people a la Chicago 1968 (D) or San Francisco 1964 (R). 

The Trump Deniers seem to think that Trump has no idea as to what game he's playing.  They think he's a guy who leads his Fantasy Football team on pure luck; his opponents' players all underperform when LowEnergyRoiders or ShortDrinksOfWater face off against FirstAndTrump.  Let's get real.  Donald Trump knows the rules of their game, changed those rules, and now, LowEnergyRoiders and ShortDrinksOfWater are now playing by Trump's rules.  Unlimited substitutions.  No points for defense.  The heads of the rest of the field are still spinning; it's the Rubios, Bushes, and Kasiches who are the flummoxed ones.

It's time for realness.  Trump Deniers need to admit they have never been right yet. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think I'm reserving judgement on Trump's effectiveness as a campaigner until after Iowa and NH, when we'll see some evidence on how well his reality-show schtick translates into votes.

[RI]

I think I'm reserving judgement on Trump's effectiveness as a campaigner until after Iowa and NH, when we'll see some evidence on how well his reality-show schtick translates into votes.

Out of curiosity, has there been an example of someone who's done so well in statewide polls and not have it translate into votes (assuming the polls don't drastically change by election time)? I know Trump is heuristic-breaking, but still.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Since I started this thread, a lot has transpired.  I voted for Trump in the Florida primary, and am leaning Trump in the GE.  I presume everyone here knows what's happened in the primaries, etc.

Then I check out the following article:  http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/16/donald-trump-looking-exit-strategy-long-troll-gop/

Amazing.  At this late date, Trump is, supposedly, crapping in his pants because he might actually win.  Erick Erickson is supposed to know what he's talking about, yet he puts an "exit strategy" article on Trump out.  Really, is he serious?

Now, folks insist that Trump can't get to 1,237 delegates.  That he can't win on a second ballot if it comes to that.  That he can't beat Hillary. 

At what point are the "Trump Can't" crowd dismissed as fools or trolls?  They're still out there in the media, being taken somewhat seriously, but why?  Why are Erick Erickson and Hugh Hewitt still taken seriously; they have thrown the kitchen sink at Trump and he's taken the kitchen sink and . . . well . . . done something else quite different with it as far as those two are concerned.  Are they any more credible than 1980's "Reagan Can't" crowd? 

They're really not "Trump Deniers" anymore.  They're "Trump Liars".

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then I check out the following article:  http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/16/donald-trump-looking-exit-strategy-long-troll-gop/

Streiff at Redstate is an absolutely despicable human being. He has some funny points some of the time, but once you see that name you should know not to pay attention to the article.

[Vosem]

Since I started this thread, a lot has transpired.  I voted for Trump in the Florida primary, and am leaning Trump in the GE.  I presume everyone here knows what's happened in the primaries, etc.

Then I check out the following article:  http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/16/donald-trump-looking-exit-strategy-long-troll-gop/

Amazing.  At this late date, Trump is, supposedly, crapping in his pants because he might actually win.  Erick Erickson is supposed to know what he's talking about, yet he puts an "exit strategy" article on Trump out.  Really, is he serious?

Now, folks insist that Trump can't get to 1,237 delegates.  That he can't win on a second ballot if it comes to that.  That he can't beat Hillary. 

At what point are the "Trump Can't" crowd dismissed as fools or trolls?  They're still out there in the media, being taken somewhat seriously, but why?  Why are Erick Erickson and Hugh Hewitt still taken seriously; they have thrown the kitchen sink at Trump and he's taken the kitchen sink and . . . well . . . done something else quite different with it as far as those two are concerned.  Are they any more credible than 1980's "Reagan Can't" crowd? 

They're really not "Trump Deniers" anymore.  They're "Trump Liars".

Have you looked at recent math or polling? 1237 is still quite a stretch for _trump (more so than, for instance, winning Iowa was when you started this thread -- something he was not able to do).

[Fuzzy Bear]

In hindsight, have the Trump Deniers ever been right?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

You know that consistently having a bias in one direction against the evidence and then being right a few times does not make you a prophet, right?

[Fuzzy Bear]

You know that consistently having a bias in one direction against the evidence and then being right a few times does not make you a prophet, right?

Well, yes, I do know that.  It's not that I'm a prophet; it's that the Trump Deniers have a streak of being wrong that has continued into his Presidency (something they insisted had no chance of happening even after the votes were in).

It's not that I'm so right; its that the Trump Deniers have been so wrong, yet events have no impact on their thinking.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

In hindsight, have the Trump Deniers ever been right?

In April 2016 you literally wrote how people will continue to be wrong about Trump's chances, and RIGHT AFTER that was a response about how Trump has no path to 1,237 delegates (remember that stupidity? LOL!).

Now it looks like this will continue in 2020. I wonder what the 2020 version of "Trump will not run/file his papers/make it to a GOP debate/make it to 2016/win a state caucus or primary/get 1,237 delegates/get the nomination/debate Clinton/last to the general/get 270 electoral votes/etc. etc." will be?

They're already starting - Trump will not even make it to 2020 apparently lol.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Well, yes, I do know that.  It's not that I'm a prophet; it's that the Trump Deniers have a streak of being wrong that has continued into his Presidency (something they insisted had no chance of happening even after the votes were in).

It's not that I'm so right; its that the Trump Deniers have been so wrong, yet events have no impact on their thinking.

At this point it has to be a source of pride for them. To be this continually wrong yet double down every time is INCREDIBLE. I mean they weren't just wrong once or twice - but DOZENS of times about EVERYTHING. What do you call someone who is wrong every time and continues to be wrong? The anti-Nostradamus lol. I call them the Eddie Mush of politics.

I've been meaning to write a book tallying all the stupid crap anti-Trump people were saying that got totally proven wrong, but they were so adamant that they were right and you were stupid if you didn't believe them like:

*Trump is just running to promote his new TV channel!

*Trump is just a Hillary plant! (before Trump was colluding with Putin he was colluding with Hillary - anyone remember that?)

*The GOP aren't going to let him have the nomination.

Over and over these people were so confident in the bullcrap THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE. This whole election was eye opening to just how disconnected from reality most people actually are and prefer their own made up fantasies to objective facts. I mean I've thought that before, but this election cycle just proved it.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

In hindsight, have the Trump Deniers ever been right?

In April 2016 you literally wrote how people will continue to be wrong about Trump's chances, and RIGHT AFTER that was a response about how Trump has no path to 1,237 delegates (remember that stupidity? LOL!).

Now it looks like this will continue in 2020. I wonder what the 2020 version of "Trump will not run/file his papers/make it to a GOP debate/make it to 2016/win a state caucus or primary/get 1,237 delegates/get the nomination/debate Clinton/last to the general/get 270 electoral votes/etc. etc." will be?

They're already starting - Trump will not even make it to 2020 apparently lol.

Being wrong in a different direction than most people is not an accomplishment.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Being wrong in a different direction than most people is not an accomplishment.

What do you mean?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Being wrong in a different direction than most people is not an accomplishment.

What do you mean?

There are some people who are partisan anti-trump hacks. You, on the other hand, are a partisan pro-trump hack.

[RFayette]

I think the truth here is somewhere in the middle of the two camps.

I think there is no question that if one where predicting results on November 7, one would have to be pretty biased to forecast a Trump victory.  Many polls were off significantly (especially in the Rust Belt states), so the Trump deniers were indeed justified in being skeptical of his general election chances.  On the other hand, I think that Trump deniers were largely engaging in special pleading during the primary seasons and very much refused to see the writing on the wall from both polling and primary results that Trump was a heavy favorite to win the nomination.  

As far as Trump's current approval ratings go, there's no question that Trump is not very popular, but 40% also isn't an automatic death sentence, especially since there is the potential to go up with time.  I think the Trump deniers are on solid footing for doubting his reelection prospects, but to say he is a shoo-in to lose or get impeached seems absurd based on present economic conditions, partisan fundamentals, etc.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Being wrong in a different direction than most people is not an accomplishment.

What do you mean?

There are some people who are partisan anti-trump hacks. You, on the other hand, are a partisan pro-trump hack.

Yeah but I am never wrong, so I still don't get what you were trying to say.

The difference between pro-Trump hacks and anti-Trump hacks is that pro-Trump hacks are always correct and invested money in Microsoft in the 1970s. Anti-Trump hacks on the other hand invested their entire retirement in Enron in 2001.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Being wrong in a different direction than most people is not an accomplishment.

What do you mean?

There are some people who are partisan anti-trump hacks. You, on the other hand, are a partisan pro-trump hack.

Yeah but I am never wrong, so I still don't get what you were trying to say.

The difference between pro-Trump hacks and anti-Trump hacks is that pro-Trump hacks are always correct and invested money in Microsoft in the 1970s. Anti-Trump hacks on the other hand invested their entire retirement in Enron in 2001.

That's certainly an apt analogy for the current situation of Trump Deniers.

I believe that Trump's winning strategy takes into account the Deniers acting as if "He's not serious!" or "He can't win!".  It's like the folks who blew off the NFL Replacement Players during the 1987 NFL Players' Strike.  "They're not any good!" shrieked folks.  Well, maybe, but as one of the owners reps said at a press conference of the replacement players:  "These games are going to count!". 

Trump Deniers treated Trump's campaign as if it didn't count; as if there were two (2) divisions; the Establishmentarians and the Rebels that met in a playoff for the nomination.  They didn't get it; the primaries were every man for themselves, and Trump was as real a candidate as they were.  And he's as real a President as Obama or either Bush.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Are there still Trump Deniers?  Is it still a publicity stunt run amok?  Is he really just an idiot who lucked out; a guy with no plan?  A guy who's toast for 2020?

Trump should be considered a slight favorite for 2020, but people are already giving the Democrats AZ and GA.  Are the deniers still here?

[Podgy the Bear]

Are there still Trump Deniers?  Is it still a publicity stunt run amok?  Is he really just an idiot who lucked out; a guy with no plan?  A guy who's toast for 2020?

Trump should be considered a slight favorite for 2020, but people are already giving the Democrats AZ and GA.  Are the deniers still here?

There are plenty of Trump deniers on this board.  They really think that his ability to distill a topic (lying or not) to simplicity, the power of incumbency, a good economy, and a fracturing Democratic party doesn't matter.