Rep. Tom Reed (R, NY-23) fiercely criticized at town hall

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also 55-40 Trump.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tom Reed was a primary Trump supporter -- trash, basically, who deserves to lose to a Democrat. Very good to see this kind of thing.

-He primary endorsed Trump because he'd have a much better chance of staying in office with Trump at the helm than Mitt.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tom Reed was a primary Trump supporter -- trash, basically, who deserves to lose to a Democrat. Very good to see this kind of thing.

-He primary endorsed Trump because he'd have a much better chance of staying in office with Trump at the helm than Mitt.

Trump and Mitt never ran against each other, so this is kind of a false choice. Reed had a choice between Trump or 15 different at least mildly better Republicans (and Christie, Trump's fellow big-government Republican). He picked Trump; like all others who picked Trump in the primaries, he deserves to lose and be purged from the political system. While it's not a position I hold, I do think a reasonable person could've chosen Trump over Hillary; I don't think a reasonable person, of really any ideological outlook besides "big-government/authoritarian Republican" and "intentional wrecker" could've voted Trump in the primary, and I'd like to see the party cleared of both groups. Really, ideally, the country.

-You really don't seem to understand much about the 14 million people who voted for Trump. Yes, Trump and Mitt did run against each other, with Mitt taking the form of Liddle Marco Rubio. Cruz was too conservative to win the district; Kasich didn't have the same rural appeal (though he still would have likely won it).

What kind of "big government Republican" picks Mulvaney as budget director? Portman is about as big-government as you can get.

I still have difficulty understanding why Blacks and Hispanics voted HRC in the primary.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'm pretty confident, by the way, that had Mitt actually run, the mixture of being much stronger in New England and the rural West than Rubio, while simultaneously much weaker among religious conservatives (and caucus-goers; remember, Rubio won MN, which Romney lost to Santorum) in the South, would've been pretty terrible for Trump -- Mitt could've more-or-less matched Rubio in Iowa, stolen both NH and NV from Trump, while bleeding hard enough in South Carolina to push the state to Cruz. Trump would've still entered the primaries first-place in the national popular vote, but with much better spread to his opposition, he would've quickly fallen apart, not winning any states until Super Tuesday and only a few Southern ones even then.

The race would probably have narrowed to a Romney v. Cruz fight, which I suspect would've basically become a replay or Romney v. Santorum, with narrow victories in Midwestern states finally culminating in massive triumphs in the Northeast that push Cruz out.

-Why would Mitt win New Hampshire? Kasich and Rubio combined didn't amount to enough votes to beat Trump in New Hampshire. Romney was only strong in the Northeast in the 2012 primaries due to the extremely weak slate of candidates. Romney's South Carolina performance in real life was basically the same as Rubio's.