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

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.)

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?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

It's a sign of a Presidential loser when his/her ticket runs away from him/her.  A number of Republican Governors, Senators, and Representatives refused to endorse Goldwater in 1964; this was countered a bit by large numbers of Southern Democrats that refused to endorse LBJ (with some openly endorsing Goldwater).  In 1972, a number of elected Democrats refused to endorse McGovern, citing policy differences, and many Democrats did their utmost to avoid being tied to the national ticket. 

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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).

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

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.