Now that Trump has unified his party, he's surging

[Beet]

I expect some pretty ugly GE polls so long as the Democratic nomination is not decided one way or another. Right now it's a single-sided war, and only one side is really shooting with full force. Democrats need to prepare to take fire until July 25 - 28 while we get our business sorted out. Meanwhile, Trump should aim to put both Democrats in such a bad position by late July that they have a steep uphill climb going into the fall - similar to the one Humphrey had in 1968, that he was unable to recover from. That will be a tougher job for him since the conventions this year are a month earlier than usual.

[Meclazine for Israel]

FoxNews has Trump up by 3%.

But CNN have Donald down by a significantly larger number.

Harder to pick than a broken nose.

[Mr. Morden]

"Unified his party".  To be clear, almost every general election poll has Clinton getting at least a slightly larger share of Democrats than Trump gets of Republicans.  But Trump is also competitive with, if not winning, Independents, which is why he's competitive overall.  Of course, it's still really early.

[Beet]

"Unified his party".  To be clear, almost every general election poll has Clinton getting at least a slightly larger share of Democrats than Trump gets of Republicans.  But Trump is also competitive with, if not winning, Independents, which is why he's competitive overall.  Of course, it's still really early.

I think independents are swayed by the fact that they see one side speaking with a united voice, and the other side speaking with a divided voice (half of which the content of what they're saying validates the other side, particularly in matchups involving Clinton). In any conflict, this will make the united side seem more credible. It is true that there are still some Republican holdouts like Romney, but the party as a whole is far more united than before, and this has coincided with the Trump surge in the polls. Nothing much else has changed.

To be clear, I'm probably one of the only Clinton supporters who's not angry at Sanders even if he is hurting Clinton in the GE polls. He's entitled to do as he likes, and he doesn't owe Clinton anything.

[Sir Mohamed]

The Trumpster has offended so many groups. His voter coalition is simply not enough to gain a majority. His path in the EC to 270 is very very narrow (if he loses FL, it's over). There’s no way he will win. November the 8th will be his ultimate Waterloo.

[BlueSwan]

To be clear, I'm probably one of the only Clinton supporters who's not angry at Sanders even if he is hurting Clinton in the GE polls. He's entitled to do as he likes, and he doesn't owe Clinton anything.

I am angry. Yes, he's perfectly entitled to stay in the race and work to spread his message. Zero problems with that. But he could easily do that without actively hurting Clinton, but that is not what he is doing. He is fairly actively egging his rabid supporters on in their terribly misguided hatred for Clinton. As late as last year Hillary Clinton was almost universally liked amongst democrats. That is far from the case today due to the right, the media and the Sandernistas all advancing the same misguided narrative about Clinton being somehow currupt.

[Beet]

Even if you are right, anger isn't going to do anything productive. These people don't like Clinton because she has failed to make the case for them. Right now all she can do is try to make the case to the majority of voters in the upcoming contests, just like she has all year, and then if she has a popular vote/pledged delegate majority, argue that that means she should be the nominee. After that point she can turn her full attention to arguing she'd make a better president than Trump. Any anger on top of that accomplishes nothing, and just looks entitled. Personally I know I would not like to be shamed into voting for anyone or policing my tone, and it wouldn't work.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The Trumpster has offended so many groups. His voter coalition is simply not enough to gain a majority. His path in the EC to 270 is very very narrow (if he loses FL, it's over). There’s no way he will win. November the 8th will be his ultimate Waterloo.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

[Santander]

The Trumpster has offended so many groups. His voter coalition is simply not enough to gain a majority. His path in the EC to 270 is very very narrow (if he loses FL, it's over). There’s no way he will win. November the 8th will be his ultimate Waterloo.

Trump offended you so he can't win. Makes sense.

[Hermit For Peace]

"Unified his party".  To be clear, almost every general election poll has Clinton getting at least a slightly larger share of Democrats than Trump gets of Republicans.  But Trump is also competitive with, if not winning, Independents, which is why he's competitive overall.  Of course, it's still really early.

I think independents are swayed by the fact that they see one side speaking with a united voice, and the other side speaking with a divided voice (half of which the content of what they're saying validates the other side, particularly in matchups involving Clinton). In any conflict, this will make the united side seem more credible. It is true that there are still some Republican holdouts like Romney, but the party as a whole is far more united than before, and this has coincided with the Trump surge in the polls. Nothing much else has changed.

To be clear, I'm probably one of the only Clinton supporters who's not angry at Sanders even if he is hurting Clinton in the GE polls. He's entitled to do as he likes, and he doesn't owe Clinton anything.

No he doesn't owe Hillary anything....it's bigger than that. If he wants to see the Democrats retain the Presidency then he needs to tone down his game, IMO. Stop throwing Hillary in such a negative light, and start getting his minions to understand how he and Hillary are more alike on the issues than different. We get Bernie's message -- the only one he apparently has which he has repeated to infinity. Now it's time for compromise and unity.

[Inmate Trump]

I've never voted Democrat before, but I will be supporting Clinton in November.

Unified his party? Hardly.

[Hermit For Peace]

I've never voted Democrat before, but I will be supporting Clinton in November.

Unified his party? Hardly.

That's what I was thinking.

[RaphaelDLG]

1) This Bernie hurting Hillary stuff is overblown media-stoked paranoia/hysteria

2) Too bad we don't have a picture of Beet's face so we can photoshop it over a cartoon of Chicken Little

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Economic conditions isn't great and GOP govs are pursuing sequester instead of raising wages will be enough to keep Trump out of WH.

[Ljube]

The Trumpster has offended so many groups. His voter coalition is simply not enough to gain a majority. His path in the EC to 270 is very very narrow (if he loses FL, it's over). There’s no way he will win. November the 8th will be his ultimate Waterloo.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Trump Unite the GOP.... That's a joke

[Maxwell]

Hey beet, you were wrong when you panicked last time.

[Vosem]

Setting aside the argument of how likely Trump is to win in November, Trump very clearly has not unified the Republican party; there are still prominent Republicans refusing to support him and his scores among Republicans, across the nation, are consistently far lower than Hillary's scores with Democrats (even though Hillary hasn't won the primary yet she's still consolidated Democrats more than Trump has consolidated Republicans, in other words). However, Trump does fare respectably well against Hillary with independents.

If Trump does win, it'll be because he blows her out with independents. A historically low result among Republicans for the Republican nominee is close to baked in at this point.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

Suggesting Trump is likelier to win the general election than people assume because he was assumed to be an unlikely primary winner but still triumphed is like assuming that if you flip a fair coin and it turns up heads, heads are a likelier result than tails from here on out. Past coin flips do not affect future ones, and a candidate defying expectations once doesn't make them likelier to do so again.

[Ljube]

Setting aside the argument of how likely Trump is to win in November, Trump very clearly has not unified the Republican party; there are still prominent Republicans refusing to support him and his scores among Republicans, across the nation, are consistently far lower than Hillary's scores with Democrats (even though Hillary hasn't won the primary yet she's still consolidated Democrats more than Trump has consolidated Republicans, in other words). However, Trump does fare respectably well against Hillary with independents.

If Trump does win, it'll be because he blows her out with independents. A historically low result among Republicans for the Republican nominee is close to baked in at this point.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

Suggesting Trump is likelier to win the general election than people assume because he was assumed to be an unlikely primary winner but still triumphed is like assuming that if you flip a fair coin and it turns up heads, heads are a likelier result than tails from here on out. Past coin flips do not affect future ones, and a candidate defying expectations once doesn't make them likelier to do so again.

The Republican Party hasn't unified completely around its presumptive nominee yet. The process is progressing faster than I expected, but is still far from finished.

Vosem, don't expect any holdouts in the end. The percentage of Republicans for Trump will actually be higher than Romney's, who was despised and rejected by the evangelicals.

[Vosem]

Setting aside the argument of how likely Trump is to win in November, Trump very clearly has not unified the Republican party; there are still prominent Republicans refusing to support him and his scores among Republicans, across the nation, are consistently far lower than Hillary's scores with Democrats (even though Hillary hasn't won the primary yet she's still consolidated Democrats more than Trump has consolidated Republicans, in other words). However, Trump does fare respectably well against Hillary with independents.

If Trump does win, it'll be because he blows her out with independents. A historically low result among Republicans for the Republican nominee is close to baked in at this point.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

Suggesting Trump is likelier to win the general election than people assume because he was assumed to be an unlikely primary winner but still triumphed is like assuming that if you flip a fair coin and it turns up heads, heads are a likelier result than tails from here on out. Past coin flips do not affect future ones, and a candidate defying expectations once doesn't make them likelier to do so again.

The Republican Party hasn't unified completely around its presumptive nominee yet. The process is progressing faster than I expected, but is still far from finished.

Vosem, don't expect any holdouts in the end.

Well, I expect at least the one holdout of me, which is one more than "any". I also think the "party unification" process, at least historically, has been extremely short; after Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee on April 10, he hit a peak on April 18, just a week later. Trump has a lot more consolidation to do because of what an unusually poor standing he has in the party; his surge is slow-burning (Romney gained more in that week than Trump has since he clinched on May 3) but is still burning more than two weeks later. Shows the differences between campaigns, I guess.

Trump's surge is also comparatively unimpressive in other ways. He is still behind where he was for most of fall 2015. There are still supporters he lost through the primary process (who weren't originally anti-Trump, that is) he has yet to win back, even now.
 

The percentage of Republicans for Trump will actually be higher than Romney's, who was despised and rejected by the evangelicals.

Romney won white evangelicals against Obama 78-21 according to exit polling, and they were 26% of the electorate. (Thus, 20% of the electorate were Romney-supporting evangelicals). I am quite confident that the number of evangelicals that object to Trump is far greater than the number for Romney, but of course they'll be reluctant to vote for Hillary, so many may sit out. In any case, I highly doubt 20% of the electorate will be Trump-supporting evangelicals.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Setting aside the argument of how likely Trump is to win in November, Trump very clearly has not unified the Republican party; there are still prominent Republicans refusing to support him and his scores among Republicans, across the nation, are consistently far lower than Hillary's scores with Democrats (even though Hillary hasn't won the primary yet she's still consolidated Democrats more than Trump has consolidated Republicans, in other words). However, Trump does fare respectably well against Hillary with independents.

If Trump does win, it'll be because he blows her out with independents. A historically low result among Republicans for the Republican nominee is close to baked in at this point.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

Suggesting Trump is likelier to win the general election than people assume because he was assumed to be an unlikely primary winner but still triumphed is like assuming that if you flip a fair coin and it turns up heads, heads are a likelier result than tails from here on out. Past coin flips do not affect future ones, and a candidate defying expectations once doesn't make them likelier to do so again.

The Republican Party hasn't unified completely around its presumptive nominee yet. The process is progressing faster than I expected, but is still far from finished.

Vosem, don't expect any holdouts in the end.

Well, I expect at least the one holdout of me, which is one more than "any". I also think the "party unification" process, at least historically, has been extremely short; after Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee on April 10, he hit a peak on April 18, just a week later. Trump has a lot more consolidation to do because of what an unusually poor standing he has in the party; his surge is slow-burning (Romney gained more in that week than Trump has since he clinched on May 3) but is still burning more than two weeks later. Shows the differences between campaigns, I guess.

Trump's surge is also comparatively unimpressive in other ways. He is still behind where he was for most of fall 2015. There are still supporters he lost through the primary process (who weren't originally anti-Trump, that is) he has yet to win back, even now.
 

The percentage of Republicans for Trump will actually be higher than Romney's, who was despised and rejected by the evangelicals.

Romney won white evangelicals against Obama 78-21 according to exit polling, and they were 26% of the electorate. (Thus, 20% of the electorate were Romney-supporting evangelicals). I am quite confident that the number of evangelicals that object to Trump is far greater than the number for Romney, but of course they'll be reluctant to vote for Hillary, so many may sit out. In any case, I highly doubt 20% of the electorate will be Trump-supporting evangelicals.

Evangelicals will not sit this one out.  They will vote for Trump. 

Evangelicals are intensely patriotic in a traditional way, and Trump's whole campaign appeals to this.  Furthermore, Trump will convince them all that he will appoint anti-Roe SCOTUS Justices, and that's enough for them.  John McCain was a divorced partier who went to strip clubs and Evangelicals flocked to him because of their sense of patriotism and their desire to see an anti-Roe SCOTUS.

[ag]

He has not, at least, yet. But he is the nominee, so, naturally, many loyal Republicans are joining his bandwagon (as do, I suspect, quite a few sanderistas).

[Mr. Morden]

"Unified the party".  Latest Gallup has Trump's standing with Republicans improving, but still 30% have a negative opinion of him:



Which compares with just 13% of Republicans having a negative opinion of Romney four years ago, and 11% for McCain eight years ago.

[IceSpear]

Beet, I'm surprised. You seem oddly calm about the very real possibility of Hillary losing the general, but were going ballistic over the next to impossible possibility of her losing the nomination.

[Vosem]

Setting aside the argument of how likely Trump is to win in November, Trump very clearly has not unified the Republican party; there are still prominent Republicans refusing to support him and his scores among Republicans, across the nation, are consistently far lower than Hillary's scores with Democrats (even though Hillary hasn't won the primary yet she's still consolidated Democrats more than Trump has consolidated Republicans, in other words). However, Trump does fare respectably well against Hillary with independents.

If Trump does win, it'll be because he blows her out with independents. A historically low result among Republicans for the Republican nominee is close to baked in at this point.

Trump. Can't. Win. [Koolaid.gif]

Suggesting Trump is likelier to win the general election than people assume because he was assumed to be an unlikely primary winner but still triumphed is like assuming that if you flip a fair coin and it turns up heads, heads are a likelier result than tails from here on out. Past coin flips do not affect future ones, and a candidate defying expectations once doesn't make them likelier to do so again.

The Republican Party hasn't unified completely around its presumptive nominee yet. The process is progressing faster than I expected, but is still far from finished.

Vosem, don't expect any holdouts in the end.

Well, I expect at least the one holdout of me, which is one more than "any". I also think the "party unification" process, at least historically, has been extremely short; after Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee on April 10, he hit a peak on April 18, just a week later. Trump has a lot more consolidation to do because of what an unusually poor standing he has in the party; his surge is slow-burning (Romney gained more in that week than Trump has since he clinched on May 3) but is still burning more than two weeks later. Shows the differences between campaigns, I guess.

Trump's surge is also comparatively unimpressive in other ways. He is still behind where he was for most of fall 2015. There are still supporters he lost through the primary process (who weren't originally anti-Trump, that is) he has yet to win back, even now.
 

The percentage of Republicans for Trump will actually be higher than Romney's, who was despised and rejected by the evangelicals.

Romney won white evangelicals against Obama 78-21 according to exit polling, and they were 26% of the electorate. (Thus, 20% of the electorate were Romney-supporting evangelicals). I am quite confident that the number of evangelicals that object to Trump is far greater than the number for Romney, but of course they'll be reluctant to vote for Hillary, so many may sit out. In any case, I highly doubt 20% of the electorate will be Trump-supporting evangelicals.

Evangelicals will not sit this one out.  They will vote for Trump. 

Evangelicals are intensely patriotic in a traditional way, and Trump's whole campaign appeals to this.  Furthermore, Trump will convince them all that he will appoint anti-Roe SCOTUS Justices, and that's enough for them.  John McCain was a divorced partier who went to strip clubs and Evangelicals flocked to him because of their sense of patriotism and their desire to see an anti-Roe SCOTUS.

First of all, "evangelicals are intensely patriotic in a traditional way" is a meaningless statement. Patriotism is not a measurable quantity and there's also no definable distinction (that I can perceive, at least) between traditional and modern patriotism. Secondly, Trump's record on social issues is incredibly imperfect. Enough evangelicals are turned off by Trump's flip-flopping on abortion (never an issue for McCain, and one that Romney headed off at the pass by being strongly identified with his religion) that it's very hard for me to imagine him doing better than Romney among them.

Some evangelicals of course are for Trump (there were plenty of states in the primary where he won pluralities among them, which isn't the case for other groups), but there's a firm group of NeverTrumpies among them that will likely sit the election out or protest vote.