NO ONE Could've predicted this outcome TM (Gloating Thread)

[The Mikado]

July:

Trump isn't a serious candidate...yet.

If he's polling like this three months from now, I will have to change my opinion. For now, though, Trump is basically a reservoir for undecided GOP voters.

On the McCain spat:

Ugh. There is literally nothing Trump can say that his fans wont forgive. This is getting rediculous

I don't think it's that his fans wouldn't "forgive" so much as that his fans aren't the type of people who had much respect for John McCain or Lindsey Graham to begin with.

August:

I start to see the light here:

I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump win New Hampshire. If Scott Walker's campaign continues to be moribund and dull, Iowa might even be in play.

The big difference between Trump and other outsider candidates is that Trump has basically unlimited resources for his campaign. Cutting him off from big donors affects Donald Trump not at all if he wants to open his wallet.

Like President Hermain Cain?... Oh wait. President Steve For- no, gosh darn it. $25,000,000 Rudy Guilian... Ah, I see.

Primary August Polls:
2012: Rick Perry & Barack Obama -> Mitt Romney & Barack Obama
2008: Rudy Guiliani & Hillary Clinton -> John McCain & Barack Obama
2004: George W. Bush & Howard Dean -> George W. Bush & John Kerry

Why You Should Ignore The Republican Presidential Primary Polls*

*March, pre-Trumpmania

Steve Forbes won two primaries in 1996 (Delaware and Arizona). The question at stake here is whether Trump will win any primaries...I don't think Forbes is an example in your favor here.

This one is still spot on, I think:

The thing that probably is best for Donald Trump is that all the other big candidates are in a dead heat behind him. There's no obvious person to coalesce around. Jeb Bush is far weaker than Mitt Romney was four years ago, and someone like Carson is probably almost as unpalatable to the establishment types as Trump. It's very hard for Rubio or Bush to make a case for themselves as the consensus anti-Trump when they're in a dead heat with Fiorina and Carson.

If Scott Walker does continue to crash and burn (as seems to be the case), it's pretty bad news for Trump as it limits the Establishment Trio of Bush/Walker/Rubio (Walker being at the right end of respectable for those types) down to a Duo, but as long as the minors siphon off votes from them and Huckabee and Cruz nail down the evangelical/radical types, an anti-Trump coalition consensus will still be tricky.

So, are we still saying Trump is a flash in the pan/flavor of the month? He's been in the lead for close to two months now.

At this point I've totally converted to thinking that Trump is the guy:

So are we still going to have people saying Trump doesn't stand a chance and is just a flash in the pan?

Who is going to be the one to step up to the plate and say it?

I'm starting to collect these quotes. After the GOP convention when we see nominee Trump deliver the classiest, most luxurious acceptance speech in post-war American history, I'll post these "Trump doesn't stand a chance" quotes for us to laugh at.

At this point, I start openly making the "Trump is the real frontrunner, not a flash in the pan argument"

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=217966.0

You all completely underestimated Donald Trump two months ago and you're paying the price for it now. He is in it to win it and if you want to stop him you can't just wait and hope he goes away on his own.

At this point, given how weak Jeb is, your best anti-Trump option might be Ben Carson.

https://instagram.com/p/6xi2dEGhfn/
https://instagram.com/p/6NbVyEmhdB/

This is brutal stuff and many, many people are seeing it and it costs next to nothing to create.

Donald Trump is ripping Jeb Bush to shreds. If you want to take Trump down, you have to take him seriously and fight back. If Jeb Bush pretends Donald Trump doesn't exist, this is not going to go well for him.

I get the feeling that this thread will be bumped in November 2016 a few days after Trump wins the election with some people mocking this stuff.

September:

This one is important. Did I call it or what?

The loyalty oath is to support the GOP nominee. All the GOPers will sign.

Half a year from now Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush will realize in horror that they signed a vow to support Donald Trump.

In all seriousness, this is an example of Trump's negotiating skills. Trump gave up nothing (a third party bid would be an impossibility given that most filing deadlines are the same dates as the primaries so he couldn't run without dropping out now) and what does he get in return for dropping the empty threat of an impossible third party run? A vow that if he wins the nomination the 16 other candidates will pledge support, something that is both useful and gratifying to Trump (Lindsey Graham's endorsement will be wonderful). A good deal.

On Labor Day, I started making a "Poll of the Holidays...Will Trump still lead by...?" series of polls, which ran through St. Patrick's Day. Trump led each time.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=218833.0

A. that Trump has been leading for nearly two months now, longer than any of the 2011 flavor of the month candidates. Perry had a huge media wave relating to his Labor Day weekend late entrance into the race that propelled him into #1.

B. More importantly, note how well Mitt Romney was doing even at the height of Perry's surge. By the end of September Mitt will be back over 20% and never drop below that line again, and is closer to 25% for most of the rest of the race, during periods he'll be basically tied with Cain and Gingrich. Trump, on the other hand...is by himself. Jeb Bush is polling about as well as Ron Paul was at this time four years ago, and Carson is just starting to break from the pack.

There's a giant Romney-shaped hole in the 2012-2016 comparison. That and Trump has already proven more durable than any of the flavor of the month candidates: he'll be celebrating two months leading the polling averages next Monday. Gingrich, the longest-lasting of the 2012 guys, made it a month and a half.

I was planning on making a thread similar to this soon. There's this bizarre insistence that Trump is "just" a distraction and that he'll go away any...day...now...

The guy may or may not be the nominee, but he's a serious contender and is in it to win it. Trump is running a masterful campaign that is making all of the other Republicans look like amateur hour by comparison. He is displaying a mastery of both old and new media, saving a fortune while using low-cost, high-return platforms like Twitter and Instagram (and America's younger population is far more invested in Instagram than on the television where Trump's rivals air ads), while at the same time orchestrating wall-to-wall coverage on news from soft to hard. Trump is violating sacred cows left and right, and forcing formidable Republican bastions like FOX News to cry uncle when faced with Trump's wrath.

If Donald Trump does lose the nomination, it will be because his rivals take him seriously as just that, a rival, and actually engage and defeat him. As long as people try to pull a Jeb! Bush and act like they're too serious and good to recognize the man who is spanking them in every electoral metric as a serious rival, they're doomed.

After Trump had a horrible second debate, many predicted it was over. I disagreed:

I think ypu guys are going to be in for a surprise when Trump is still comfortably leading a month from now.

Well I know I won't be popular in reminding folks that Trump's 15 minutes would soon be up😊 and it's nice to say, I told you so!!!😊😀

Heatmaster, how would you like a wager? If Trump is leading in the most recent credible (non-Gravis/Morning Consult/other joke firm) national poll on October 1st you will change your avatar and signature to whatever I want for a month. If Trump is not leading I will change my avatar and sig to whatever you want for a month.

If you think Trump is almost done, October 1st should be soon enough, right?

His soft support is leaving for now, but his numbers are stabilizing at ~25% from their previous ~30%. In other words, he had a debate that was seen as bad for him and it cost him somewhere between a sixth and a fifth of his support.

Trump is far from done. Next week's government shutdown should give his numbers and the other outsiders' numbers (along with Cruz) a nice bump, and put Rubio in a horrible catch of having to either cast a senate vote for a clean CR or vote against a clean CR, either of which would be a horrible problem for Mister All Things To All People.

I don't want to go over the character limit. Later today, I'll do Carson's surge in late October onwards.

[The Mikado]

In late October, Ben Carson surged. Can Donald Trump survive not being in first?

So Trump is polling like he did three weeks ago in other polls...Trump is clearly doomed.

He's had several dips over the last few months. He bounces right back.

He's already beaten and beaten hard, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Trump RCP average on September 16th, at the height of the "Summer of Trump:" 30.5%.

Trump RCP average on October 30th (after Trump has "been beaten hard"): 27.0%.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Carson has tightened the gap a bit, but Trump still has a significant edge, and Trump's margins in New Hampshire and South Carolina dwarf Carson's lead in Iowa.

Mr. Morden, my main point is that the current tightening isn't so much Trump going down as Carson moving up. Trump's support is in the 25% range compared to the 30% range at his height, sure, but his support has proven remarkably durable during the rough phase in late September/early October. Those who stuck with him aren't really leaving. The tightening in the race is Carson consolidating non-Trump and former soft-Trump voters.

Can Carson overtake Trump? Absolutely, it could happen over the next two weeks. I'm just saying I wouldn't consider an RCP average of Carson 26, Trump 24 in late November to be a sign of a Trump collapse or a situation Trump couldn't recover from.

November

Somehow people were still not getting it.

Marco Amnesty is about to get attacked by TRUMP. RIP.

And Trump is about to get attacked by Amnesty International, so RIP for him too.

Amnesty International attacking Trump would be fantastic for Trump. The more we get lurid descriptions of Trump forcing millions on a forced march across the Sonora Desert into Mexico with millions dying of thirst, the more popular Trump will get.

On Jeb saying he'd kill Baby Hitler:

One of the things I love about Donald Trump is that the low energy attack is a blatant attempt to goad Jeb into sounding like a madman in order to prove that he is "high energy." This is a great case in point. Jeb is forced into absurd situations and has to act increasingly unhinged.

On Veterans' Day:

Well, Trump's lead has evaporated to nearly-nothing, but nearly-nothing is still a positive number! Also, most of the tightening has come from Carson rising, not Trump falling. Trump's support is remarkably consistent.

The key to this question might just be "do you think Carson can stay on top until November 26th" rather than anything to do with Trump. Or maybe you do think Trump will collapse in the next two weeks or something, who knows.

It'll be really funny in early December when, after a short drop back into the low 20s, Trump is back at 25 and all of these "end of Trump" predictions are proven wrong yet again. People keep doing this idiotic thing where they bet against Donald Trump. How long until they learn their lesson?

If anything, the events in Paris are going to put serious scrutiny on Rubio's immigration policy and make Trump look like a prophet.

I predict that Jeb Bush will get a new lease on life after Christmas.  Every poll and every twist and turn up until now will be forgotten come January, at which point the serious business of nominating a candidate comes to the fore.  The powers that be have already gotten behind Bush, and they will pull the strings up to the day the delegates vote on the floor of the convention.  Bush will win the nomination on the 1st ballot, and it will be a united party.

This is...attributing a lot more unity and a lot more power to the "Establishment" than actually exists. There have been repeated stories in recent weeks of billionaire donors jumping camp to Rubio and most Republican politicians are fencesitting. Jeb's extravagant and fast-spending campaign is struggling to deal with the money drying up, leading to layoffs and paycuts.

Jeb's campaign leaks and telegraphs all of its attacks weeks in advance, giving time to plan responses. Jeb cannot land a blow in a debate to save his life. Jeb conveys a level of arrogant disdain for voters, like he resents having to actually run for President. Jeb is totally out of touch with the mood of the electorate on many matters, both issues like immigration and more ephemeral things. Jeb is not angry at a time when anger is the biggest motivating factor in the GOP.

Why on earth would these things be different two months from now? Will Jeb somehow suck less at the January 28th debate than at the October 28th debate? Will Jeb somehow convonce the electorate that immigration is OK after an immigrant just help shoot up Paris? Will Jeb be able to convince donors that Rubio isn't every good thing in Jeb without the bad things? Will Jeb be able to keep the lights on in his campaign while waiting for Right to Rise to make terrible, telegraphed attack ads that will be widely mocked?

For Jeb to turn this around, Jeb will have to no longer be Jeb. If we've learned anything over the last half a year, it's that Jeb Bush sucks at politics.

Trump's supporters like him because he's saying these things, not despite them. The Niemöller paraphrase sounds ridiculously melodramatic to people who don't support Trump.

Frankly, there's a big chunk of this country that has wanted to go after Muslims, illegal immigrants, and the press for a long time. Confirming that Trump has it out for those groups just makes Trump more attractive as a candidate to those people, not less attractive.

This strikes me as particularly perceptive:

Trump's not going to decline on his own. If the GOP wants to beat him, they have to consolidate, and even in a three-way Trump/Rubio/Cruz matchup Trump's support would make him a formidable option. They need a one-on-one, and that'll be difficult to get.

Question of this thread is "Has a candidate led by as much as Trump and lost?"

Howard dean, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, and Hillary Clinton

Dean especially never really broke out of the low 20s, and Forbes didn't hold the lead for a significant chunk of 1995 in the 96 race. Giuliani is a fair point, but unlike Trump, had no support in Iowa or New Hampshire. Trump is currently narrowly leading IA and massively leading NH. As for Clinton, like pointed out before, that was a 2 1/2 candidate race. Clinton came in third in Iowa with 30% of the vote...the winner of Iowa in the GOP 2016 primary will be lucky to hit that number.

Think about it this way. Bernie Sanders could lose Iowa by 30 points, 65-35 (due to the 15% threshold at each station, O'Malley won't even register), and Sanders' humiliating defeat would still be a higher vote share than the winner of the GOP contest in Iowa. That's the difference between a two way race and a 14 way race.

December:

This, I think, was one of the most insightful posts I made this primary season.

I just don't see how Rubio's path works without a New Hampshire victory. Either that means Cruz Iowa Trump New Hampshire, in which case the race becomes a horse race between those two, Trump IA/Trump NH, which causes utter panic, or Cruz IA/Cruz NH, which admittedly might actually favor Rubio.

Rubio just...isn't the guy if he doesn't win NH. Despite that, his campaign there has been shockingly lackadaisical and he just isn't going there very often. Compare with Chris Christie, who basically lives in NH despite being the sitting governor of New Jersey. How can Rubio win New Hampshire when it doesn't really look like he's even trying to?

Rubio totally blew it by not going in full-throttle on NH. Getting 5th in NH ended up torpedoing his entire campaign.

Remember when people thought Rubio was going to take NV? I didn't.

The ridiculous polling drought of NV means that it's an open question as to whether or not Rubio is even strong there now.

Regardless, Rubio wouldn't be able to win NV if he comes in third or worse in IA, NH, and SC. He needs to break through in one of those states.

EDIT: Our most recent NV poll is from October. That is ludicrous.

I was an early and often Rubio skeptic at the time people thought he was the Great Tan Hope of the GOP.

Rubio at 35%? I'm still unsure exactly how this Rubio route works, especially since even if he pulls off the surprise NH win (doubtful) he gets demolished on Super Tuesday, killing any momentum he might get.

Next installment will cover 2016.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You must think pretty highly of yourself if you think anyone cares enough to read this.

Plus, where's the thread with all your posts about how Hillary would surely lose the nomination?

[Asian Nazi]

I mean pretty much everyone who wasn't an idiot predicted a Clinton-Trump matchup after the latter ascended in the polls.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You must think pretty highly of yourself if you think anyone cares enough to read this.

Plus, where's the thread with all your posts about how Hillary would surely lose the nomination?

Are you confusing him with Beet?

I mean pretty much everyone who wasn't an idiot predicted a Clinton-Trump matchup after the latter ascended in the polls.

^^^

This but not just idiots - some fairly decent people quickly became afflicted by spirits upon the thought of someone like Trump doing well because their precious sport was full of quality people above this (Did they miss out on the 80s when we were joking back and forth with the Soviets?)

[RightBehind]

Trump sure has brought out the ugly in America.

[Bacon King]

Looks like I posted most of my Trump related #analysis on AAD, but I found these to posts to quote-brag:

Trump proves once again he is the most serious Republican candidate in the race

Of course Trump will lose, and it is in fact reflected in current polling. Head-to-heads have long shown Trump losing to everyone except Bush, who has long fallen into irrelevance anyway. Trump may very well win IA, and right now he looks like an overwhelming favorite to win NH. But eventually, the other candidates will coalesce around one person (right now, I suspect Cruz has the best shot by means of winning IA. But it may be that Trump will win IA/NH/SC and that an anti-Trump will only emerge later; it doesn't matter), and whoever that person is will smash Trump like the bug he is.

The problem with this analysis is that it's definitely not a given for any candidate to drop out early enough for support to coalesce around an anti-Trump, especially in the post-Citizens United era where superPACs can handle the heavy lifting with big ad buys.

As ironic as it is, Trump is in the same position that Romney held in 2012. There were quite a few candidates that would have defeated Romney in a head to head race at various points in the campaign, but the race was never just Romney vs. Anti-Romney (even as it got later in the primary season, Gingrich and Santorum were still acting as spoilers for each other) and this race will never be just Trump vs. one Anti-Trump.

[The Mikado]

January:

So, in that spirit, what are you going to do with your time, after Trump comes in third in South Carolina, and drops out?

For your sake, I hope that's trolling, because otherwise you've gone fully delusional.

After Trump demolished Cruz's New York Values attack:

I have, over the last 15 years, seen exactly one (1) use of 9/11 in a political context that wasn't tacky or abusing the memory of the dead for crass political purposes.

That one use was tonight. Trump was 100% right to bring up 9/11.

Just wanted to point something out:

Five weeks ago, the OP posted this:

Not unstoppable.
Just watch, in about 4 weeks you will see a convergence of support around Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.  And once that happens, they will go after Trump with negative ads that will have him scrambling for answers, driving him way off message.

This current thread is demonstrating the big problem with wolfsblood's logic consistently through the campaign: he thinks that at some point there'll be a big concerted effort to shut down Trump, a massive negative campaign. This has not emerged at all.  At all. There's basically no pushback from the Establishment and we're less than two weeks out from Iowa.

Question was "Who will the GOP Establishment circle in on?" I was admittedly off by six weeks.

At first, no one. By March 16th, Donald Trump.

I wasn't right about everything. On the debate Trump skipped:

He'll attend.

If he didn't FNC would do that bs empty podium stunt and ask questions to an empty podium to make him look like a coward.

My read on Rubio going into Iowa:

It's not so much that he's "too conservative," whatever that means anymore, as its closely related statement: he's not one of them. Marco Rubio is a nobody in his early 40s who took advantage of the Tea Party to luck into a Senate seat that wasn't intended for him, has been absentee for most of his term, and one term into his national career in politics is running for president. Republican elites have known John Kasich, either personally or through reputation, since the Clinton Administration, and ditto Jeb Bush, or, through his father, back as far as anyone in this country is alive (Bush Sr. was a national political figure back to the Johnson Administration). Chris Christie has been a high profile national figure for quite some time now, as well. Rubio? Elected out of nowhere to the Senate in 2010, briefly nationally prominent in 2013 due to the failed immigration bill, and basically invisible ever since. Rubio's entire national career has been in the 2010s. Rubio's reputation outside of Florida is restricted to the Obama Administration years.

Rubio is one other thing in addition to that, also closely related: he's a young man in a hurry. Nothing irritates Congressional lifers more than these whippersnappers who are not even 50 yet who think that they should be President now. This also applies to Cruz, of course, but Cruz's tactic of burning every bridge in sight meant that he was never going to get any support from DC and in fact banks on not having said support as a talking point.

On Trump's debate counterprogramming:

This is a masterstroke. I don't understand how people think this will hurt him when Trump's benefit event will likely be more widely watched than the debate.

People will see that he is not serious, he is a sideshow.

What on Earth has given you the notion that anyone is looking for "serious" this election?

I seriously wonder how anyone can think this move is bad for Trump. His ratings are going to dwarf the debate. It will stop millions of people from watching the debate and, by extension, remembering that the other candidates are people who exist. It makes Trump look like the fighting man who's doing things and helping our Vets in need while the ordinary pols talk and talk and accomplish nothing.

Most of all, it will be fun. The debate will not be.

No one will care about this debate.

There's just no way that this is going to BENEFIT him.  No one is switching their vote to Trump because he did this. What possible rationale would there be for that?

It just makes him less serious, and people don't vote for unserious, unprofessional people

There's plenty of rationale. Trump's going to frame it as A. Him not tolerating Fox News insulting him to his face (that press release will cost FNC dearly) and thus actually standing up to his enemies rather than capitulating, and B., more importantly, he will be holding a benefit for wounded veterans, actually doing something to make America great again, at the same time his GOP rivals are blathering into a camera. This is great optics for him. Rather than talking about improving the country, he's actually doing it right now, even before he's elected. The wounded vets thing is a brilliant touch and makes the whole project into a winning one.

The most critical point, however, is C.

It just makes him less serious, and people don't vote for unserious, unprofessional people

This is flat out untrue and if you believe that these next few months are going to be very unpleasant for you.

One of these days we'll tell our grandchildren that we saw Donald Trump perform in his prime in the same way people speak of seeing Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong or...um...someone who didn't use performance enhancing drugs who dominated their field. Trump gets the demographic he's playing to on a level that's not even conscious: he isn't giving the GOP what they want. He's giving the GOP what they never knew they wanted. After he wins the primary, he'll do the same with the country at large.

Underestimate Trump at your peril. He is dead serious and is a man of vast talent and absolutely ruthless cutthroat instinct.

February:

After Trump lost Iowa, many thought he was finished. Not me! (The below was DEAD ON)

It's obviously a poor result.

The question is whether Trump is going to pull a Dean 04 or a Clinton 08. Dean got third in Iowa when he was expected to win and flamed out and became a national laughingstock. Clinton got third in Iowa when she was expected to win and buckled down, expressed humility and vulnerability, and won over New Hampshire and turned the race into a half-year-long dead even race.

Trump's concession speech had an appropriate degree of humility and Trump has a nice advantage in that Thursday's ABC debate will feature 5 out of 7 candidates who want to rip Marco Rubio's throat out (everyone but Rubio and Dr. Carson).  Under the right circumstances, Trump could seriously impress in NH next week and we'd be solidly into the three-way Trump/Cruz/Rubio battle.

2) Disappearing voters: Nobody knows exactly what happened tonight. Most likely is that a lot of Trump voters who said they were going to turn out actually didn't. Another possibility is that these people never supported him to begin with, and were either doing so "ironically" or just as a placeholder protest vote until they seriously considered their other options. This means his dominance everywhere could be just a facade.

Just to comment on this one...

Donald Trump had 45,000 votes last night. In 2012, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both got 30,000 votes. In 2008, Mike Huckabee set the record for Iowa Caucus voting at 41,000 votes. All of the exit polling showed that Trump won first time voters. Trump's folks turned out.

The thing is, they're not the only ones who turned out. Mike Huckabee's 41,000 in 2008 was good for 34% of the vote, while Trump's 45,000 last night was only good for 24% of the vote. Ted Cruz smashed it with a shocking 51,000 votes.

In 2012 120,000 voted in the GOP Iowa caucus, in 2016 it was 180,000. A great segment of that increase was Trump fans, but people bound and determined to stop Trump must have made an even larger segment.

Basically, it's not poor turnout by Trump's people, it's mind-blowingly good turnout by Cruz's people.

On whether Trump was imploding:

Ask me again next week. If anyone can turn this around, it's Donald J. Trump.

Trump may be shedding his soft support for now, but his core is staying with him, and should he win NH, he can recover. At the moment looks like it's solidifying into a three-man race, which isn't the worst thing in the world for him. Trump can win a three-way race once it gets going...a two way would be difficult, though. If he wins NH by a reasonable margin and blocks Rubio's upswing and he and Cruz are 1st and 2nd in SC, we'd be back into a pretty favorable situation for Trump.

After NH, vindication.

It is hilarious how many of you lost faith in Trump last week and regained it tonight. The polls last week here were almost all Rubio.

That's it for now, guys!

[7,052,770]

Aren't you the one who kept insisting that Hillary's "investigation" was a really big deal?

That kinda negates you sharing a common prediction that Trump would do well, doesn't it?

[Alcon]

Aren't you the one who kept insisting that Hillary's "investigation" was a really big deal?

No, like Sprouts Farmer said, Beet is the Clinton supporter who constantly thinks Clinton is doomed.

[Ronnie]

Congrats.  Now watch as he goes down in flames.

[Doimper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Lol alright, props for this one, at least.

[7,052,770]

Aren't you the one who kept insisting that Hillary's "investigation" was a really big deal?

No, like Sprouts Farmer said, Beet is the Clinton supporter who constantly thinks Clinton is doomed.

...

I never said Mikado was any of those things.


Sure enough, the Mikado WAS the one I was thinking about, although to be fair, after rereading the posts, it's not really that bad. Plenty of people here banging the drum much harder.

Hillary won't be indicted, or forced from the race, or lose the race because of this email nothing. The end.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sepp Blatter thought he was untouchable a few months ago and look what happened. FBI investigations are serious affairs.

30% is way too high a chance for an indictment, and I'm someone who takes this investigation seriously. Maybe cut that to 10%, and add on a ~2% chance for freak plane crash/health problem between now and the start of the primaries. I'd give Clinton about a 7 in 8 chance of getting the nomination.

A potential case of Gross Negligence under the Espionage Act of 1917 is a rather big deal indeed...carries up to 10 years imprisonment.

We know this already. NBC themselves ran a piece confirming this like two weeks ago.

For those who haven't been following, this is some serious business and just from what's already been publicly released the FBI would have a strong case against Clinton. It's really up to the discretion of the FBI Director as to whether this goes anywhere, though.

[Crumpets]

I'm actually pretty proud looking back at my early Trump prognostications. These are all from July or earlier, and the only real embarrassing bit is how much faith I put in Bush to be a strong contender.

New Jersey and Florida seem like they would be Trump strongholds.

If the GOP nomination boils down to Trump v. Bush, it would be a fascinating dynamic. Tea Partiers would be supporting someone who is nominally moderate on many secondary issues just because Bush is nominally moderate on hot issues like immigration.

RE: How trump could win

Make sure his surge doesn't recede by having at least two great debate performances, throwing red meat and jabbing others for not "having what it takes" or not "speaking the truth, even though they know what's really happening." Don't focus on any state in particular until right before the primaries, and spend his resources building his national profile, always staying in the top two or three in national polls, and generally establishing himself as the only anti-establishment alternative to Jeb. He doesn't need any individual state, but if he can win at least one of the first three states, other anti-establishment candidates will start to drop out. If he can get some endorsements from Jindal, Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, and the like. I could imagine him winning a three-way race between Bush/Rubio/Trump, or Bush/Walker/Trump, even if Paul pulls a Paul and stays in long after his welcome.

I can't imagine the non-Trump candidates being able to pull together to force Trump out any more than all the non-Romney candidates being able to do so in 2012. If anything, they'd rather be on stage with a Trump than a Romney so that they can shoot him down (pun intended) and come across as the good guy without having to stake out any divisive policy positions.

[Ebsy]

This might have been my hottest take on Atlas:

I think it will become clear, in retrospect, that Jeb!'s never had much of a chance at the nomination and what little chance he had ended the moment Trump entered the race.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Well, guess what, frickin ANN COULTER called it in June 2015:

https://youtu.be/7W9YWVQAIxM?t=541

[Wisconsin+17]

Coulter also thinks he can win the general.

[Gustaf]

It's hard to construct a counterfactual, but I still think Rubio would have had a decent shot had he not blown that pre-NH debate. In a scenario where he takes 2nd in NH I think the dynamic changes a lot. We'd get a 3-man race between Rubio, Cruz and Trump pretty quickly, maybe even before South Carolina. Rubio's flaw was not having a cornered support group in a crowded race, but his strength was simultaneously his broad appeal (until he fell apart, that is ).

[Slow Learner]

Wasn't on Atlas then, but I thought that Trump would win from at least early November.

[Meclazine for Israel]

As soon as i saw Trump was in the mix, I knew it was going to be entertainment gold.

But i would not have predicted he would become President.

Now he is a 25% chance.