There's a terminal case of Trump denial syndrome around here.

[Mr. Morden]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Why do you classify "leading in the polls" at this early stage as being synonymous with "frontrunner"?  Gotta go with Nate Silver on this one:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All the endorsements in the world don't matter if the actual electorate refuses to vote for you. And this electorate is one that (currently) wants new, corruption-free blood in Washington that will actually get things done. And it's difficult to see them bowing down to Bush unless he fundamentally changes his strategy.

Also, keep in mind that the number of endorsements given out so far is less than the number given out at this point in 2012.

To be honest, I’m not that high on Bush either.  If I had to bet right now, I guess I’d go Rubio, but it’s wide open, and everyone’s well under 50% likelihood of winning the nomination.

I realize that there haven’t been that many endorsements.  My point is that it’s another indicator.  Just like polling is an indicator.  Why does polling trump (ha ha) all else in determining who is “winning” at this early stage?  No votes have been cast yet, and we are a long way off from votes being cast.  So we are relying on all of these imperfect indicators, but I don’t see polling as being the end all be all of the standings.  The media might say “Derp de doo, so-and-so is `winning’ because they have better poll numbers right now.  I guess they’re the frontrunner”, but there’s no reason we have to stick with analysis that simplistic here.

[Mr. Morden]

More Trump Denial threads.  Amusing to view them today.  Maybe they can be combined.  It's mandatory reading for folks who think Trump can't win a second term.

I definitely think he can win a second term.  I thought he could win a first term, though yeah, like nearly everyone else, I considered him the underdog in last year's GE.  But I was a big skeptic of him winning the nomination for a long time, and was wrong about that.

That said, one thing I was right about was how most of the #NeverTrump Republican politicians would stick to their guns.  Very few of those who said they wouldn't endorse him in the general election ended up flip-flopping on that.  (Some did, but not many.)  Yet many folks kept insisting that many of them would fold any day.  E.g., about one year ago at this time:

I expect Murkowski, Lee, and Flake to say, in the end, that they are voting for Trump.  I don't expect them to campaign for him, but they'll give that much of an "endorsement".  Trust me.

Suffice it to say, none of them ended up endorsing him in the end.  (Lee said he voted McMullin, and I'm not sure if the other two ever ended up saying who they voted for.)

[Mr. Morden]

Did more Democratic Governors, Senators, and Congressman not vote for McGovern in 1972.  Or did more GOP Governors, Senators, and Congressmen not vote for Trump in 2016?

No idea.  I wasn't alive in 1972, and so wasn't keeping track of who was endorsing McGovern. 

[Mr. Morden]

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.

[Mr. Morden]

It is a unique political event in American history that in 2016, Donald Trump won in the face of so many Republicans who said they would not endorse him.  And my standard of an "endorsement" is pretty low.  It's the Bob Sikes test.  In 1968, Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) of the FL Panhandle, told a reporter, "I'm voting for the national ticket (Humphrey-Muskie) but I'm not asking anyone else to."  The Republicans I'm talking about are folks who wouldn't even admit that they would vote for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

That's a big group.  A Democrats for Nixon-sized group.  Yet Trump won.

Well yes, I know that.  Yes, it was a new thing that Trump won despite having so many of the party elite not supporting him.  My takeaway is that the opinion of the party elite doesn't really matter anymore (to the extent that it ever did...see below).  That's why I also think that a 2020 primary challenger who gets Buchanan '92-esque #s (more than 20% of the national popular vote, and more than a third of the vote in at least certain states) wouldn't really hurt Trump.  In fact, it might *help* both Trump and the GOP for them to keep their brands somewhat separate, by showing that they don't all agree on everything, and he's his own man.

But re: the party elite's opinions not mattering anymore, even looking back at McGovern's loss in 1972: Was it really the case that party figures not endorsing him contributed to his loss?  Or was it just a case of his existing unpopularity leading them to flee, rather than the latter causing the former?  In Trump's case, GOP politicians weren't endorsing him both for reasons of his unpopularity and for "respectability" reasons.  But the voters don't care about "respectability", and also many of them were willing to vote for him despite having an unfavorable opinion of him, so that was also unusual.

They had a less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  At best, an equally unfavorable opinion.

On top of that, Hillary had the endorsement of just about EVERY media outlet, including newspapers who normally didn't make endorsements (most notably USA Today).

But that's my point.  These things don't matter.  Voters don't care if a candidate has the support of the elite of their party and they don't care if they have the support of elites in general.  You wrote:

"It's a sign of a Presidential loser when his/her ticket runs away from him/her."

which, if I'm understanding your point correctly, made it sound like Trump's lack of elite support was some significant challenge that he managed to overcome.  (If that wasn't your point, then please explain what your point was.)  I'm saying no, I don't think it was a significant challenge for him to not have this elite support, because I don't think elite support matters to very many voters.

[Mr. Morden]

Why did the Romneys and Rockefellers run away from Goldwater?  Because they thought he was too far out of the mainstream, and would take the GOP down with him in their states.

Why did the Talmadges and Eastlands not endorse McGovern?  Because they were poles apart from him, personally.

These are the two (2) reasons folks don't endorse their Presidential candidate.  They either have deep disagreements with the candidate, or they find the candidate too far out of the party's mainstream. 

These weren't the reasons Republicans weren't endorsing Trump.  It was personal.  Trump wasn't far away from where they were on issues.  More importantly, the 2016 election showed that Trump was in the mainstream of public opinion moreso than any other candidate. 

The Trump Deniers don't get that.  They STILL don't get that.  Trump's NOT an extremist; he's more mainstream than any major Democrat OR Republican in recent years. 

If by “personal” you mean that they did for “character”-based reasons, then yes, I largely agree, though I’d say there were a number of different reasons mixed together.  E.g., some of them didn’t like the way he talked about immigration, Islam, killing terrorists’ families, etc.  Some of that stuff is kind of a mix of “character” and “issues”.  I’d call it “respectability”.  The combination of his character and his take on certain issues, and particularly the way he talked about those issues made him “not respectable” in the minds of many of those who didn’t endorse him.

But OK, so what?  That doesn’t prove that voters agree more with him on issues than they do with the folks who didn’t endorse him.  I mean, many of those Republican politicians who didn’t endorse Trump ran ahead of him in their home states, so….