Posted on 04/12/2016 5:30:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If Republicans nominate Donald Trump, they nearly cede the White House to Hillary Clinton. Trump wouldn't merely be an underdog in the general election. He would be the worst Republican nominee since Alf Landon 80 years ago.
The polls show Trump would be a disaster. To date, Trump's message control has been a disaster, and it would be a disaster in the general election. His political inexperience, which has hamstrung him in the primary cycle, would be a disaster in the fall.
All indications suggest a Trump versus Hillary battle would be a one-sided affair.
Poll problems
Donald Trump would be the most disliked major-party nominee in the history of favorability polling.
The only presidential candidate to beat him in unfavorability never got close to the nomination: Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, who had 69 percent unfavorable ratings in 1992 — and Duke was within the margin of error of Trump, who is currently at 67 percent unfavorable in a late-March ABC/Washington Post poll.
That means that for every American who has a favorable view of Donald Trump, more than two others have an unfavorable view. A majority of the country, 56 percent, have a "strongly unfavorable" view in that survey. Trump's 37 percentage-point net unfavorable rating makes Democratic front-runner Clinton, who is 6 percent underwater in favorability ratings, look more than likable enough.
A clear majority, 59 percent, do not find Clinton honest and trustworthy. That's much better than Trump, who is found dishonest or untrustworthy by 69 percent. Trump polls worse than Clinton on basically every question.
When asked if the candidate:
• "Understands the problems of people like you?" Clinton is in the negative, but still has a 13-point edge on Trump.
• "Has the right kind of experience to be president?" Clinton has a 40-point lead, 66-26, over Trump.
• "Has the personality and temperament it takes?" Clinton is 33 points stronger.
Trump would be the least-respected, least-liked major party nominee since polling began.
That's why Clinton leads Trump by double digits in most recent polls, with an average of 10.6 percent according to RealClearPolitics. She has led Trump in the RCP average for the entire campaign. That lead grew steadily throughout March, ever since Clinton and Trump became the clear front-runners for their party nominations.
Compare that to past elections. In the first half of April 2012, President Obama's lead over Mitt Romney hovered between 2.3-5.3 percent. Obama's largest lead in the RealClearPolitics average at any point in 2012 was 5.9 percent. Obama held a double-digit lead over Romney in only one poll after March 1, 2012.
Obama's largest lead over John McCain was eight points.
The problem isn't just Clinton's lead. It's Trump's apparent ceiling: His average in head-to-head national polls against Clinton has never climbed above 44 percent, and he's been hovering around 40 percent since Super Tuesday.
Electoral college
No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio, and Trump is looking bad in Ohio. Clinton beat Trump in all three Ohio polls conducted in March, by an average of six points.
Any review of the Electoral College looks ugly for Trump.
The website "270 to Win" looked at polling averages and found Clinton carrying 260 electoral votes to Trump's 115 votes, with 165 up for grabs. Clinton's vote total on the site doesn't include Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio or Florida, all states where Clinton has to be considered the favorite. If Clinton carried Minnesota, Ohio or Florida — any one of those — she would win.
Look at every other swing state. In New Hampshire, Trump trails in every poll this year, most recently by eight points. In Florida, Clinton leads by eight in the latest poll and 2.2 percent in the RealClearPolitics average. Clinton beat Trump in the only Iowa poll. Clinton beat Trump by 17 points in the only Virginia poll this year.
Trump says he can expand the electoral map and win in places Republicans haven't won in decades, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. The polls don't concur.
Trump trails Clinton in Michigan by double digits in two polls conducted in late March. Every Michigan poll this year has shown Trump losing to Clinton significantly, and the margin grew after the Michigan GOP Primary, which Trump won.
Clinton led Trump in every Pennsylvania poll in March, most recently by 13 points. Trump hasn't cracked 40 percent in a single Pennsylvania survey this year.
Trump lacks the political skills
In some ways, Trump is a phenomenally effective politician. He couldn't have gotten to 45 percent nationally in a crowded field otherwise. He couldn't have won 20 states including New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida otherwise.
But he appears to lack the political skills to win in a general election.
First, we should expect Trump to flop in the debates. Trump had success in GOP primaries, but there was a reason he called them off — refusing to participate in a post-Florida Fox News debate and ignoring Ted Cruz's calls for one-on-one debates. Trump thrived in crowded debates where all he had to do was rudely put down Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and where he could get away with always changing the topic.
In the less-crowded debates after South Carolina, Trump looked worse. Rubio exposed Trump's utter shallowness on healthcare policy, and Trump found himself flailing in policy areas where he was way out of his depth. Recent interviews, in which television journalists Anderson Cooper, John Dickerson and Chris Matthews pressed Trump on abortion or nuclear proliferation, exposed his incompetence.
In a one-on-one debate against Clinton, Trump's lack of policy knowledge and critical thinking skills would be glaring.
There's also the boorishness problem.
Despite all the talk about equality and equity, and treating women the same as men, we don't really live that way. Men are still expected to treat women with more courtesy than men treat other men. Put another way: You can be a boorish bully toward men in ways you can't toward women.
Trump probably helped himself by interrupting, insulting and sneering at Bush and Rubio. It may have been deliberate on his part, but it's also his personality. When he behaves that way toward Clinton, he will accomplish the incredible: making Americans feel sympathetic toward her.
Rick Lazio and Obama both learned that the hard way. In 2000, as Clinton was campaigning against soft money, Lazio walked across the stage, handed her a pledge to forego soft money and prodded her to sign it. Clinton was as evasive and equivocating as always, but with him leaning over her, pointing his finger at a small mother in a pastel pants suit, Lazio looked like a bully.
In New Hampshire in 2008, as Clinton gave a cheesy answer on her likability, Obama interjected with an offhand joke. "You're likable enough, Hillary," he said, a bit tersely. He lost New Hampshire.
Americans expect men to treat women with courtesy. Clinton would find it the easiest thing in the world to tease out Trump's rudeness — if she even had to try.
The money problem
The three factors for judging a candidate's strength are: the polls, the candidate's political skills and campaign cash. If Trump is flailing in national polls, state polls and favorability polls, and if he's an unprepared boor, at least he can spend his billions, right?
Wrong. Trump would be steamrolled by Clinton's cash juggernaut, even worse than other Republican candidates would be.
Trump hasn't sworn off fundraising. His website and his ads all solicit donations. But he has barely raised any money — $10 million in contributions and $24 million in loans to himself as of the end of March.
Trump also has no experience raising campaign cash. He has alienated the two parts of the Republican Party that do have experience raising money: the establishment-K Street axis and the Tea Party groups. Many businesses already have expressed unwillingness to attach themselves to a Trump nomination.
And Trump probably can't close the gap with his own wealth. Clinton will spend more than a billion dollars in the general election. We don't know Trump's net worth exactly, but we do know the higher estimates all include the value of his name brand, which is not a liquid asset. His buildings, his golf courses and his casinos are not liquid assets, either. Trump probably doesn't have a spare billion in cash to spend.
He lacks the political skills, the likability, the public support and the fundraising ability to beat Hillary Clinton. That's why he won't even come close.
I disagree. Trump is down in the polls right now because he's been savaged from the right and the left (ironically, mainly the right at the moment) and that has drug his ratings down and his head-to-head numbers with Hillary. But I think that Cruz would very likely lose because he's a hardliner and while that plays well in caucuses, it doesn't play well with the average American. In fact, Trump may be the only candidate who could defeat Hillary.
And that is why Trump gets my vote. I wouldn’t vote for a nationally popular guy like Ted Cruz who gets around 20% of the vote.
No sir-eee!
Disagree, a new NBC poll released today shows HRC at 38%, Trump at 36%. After awhile a backlash against the media will develop and Trump’s numbers will rise. Just my opinion of course.
“No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio, and Trump is looking bad in Ohio. Clinton beat Trump in all three Ohio polls conducted in March, by an average of six points. “
On average Cruz is behind Hillary in OH
“Any review of the Electoral College looks ugly for Trump.”
Any review of the Electoral College looks even uglier for Cruz or Kasich.
“The website “270 to Win” looked at polling averages and found Clinton carrying 260 electoral votes to Trump’s 115 votes, with 165 up for grabs. Clinton’s vote total on the site doesn’t include Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio or Florida, all states where Clinton has to be considered the favorite. If Clinton carried Minnesota, Ohio or Florida — any one of those — she would win. “
Except she won’t win FL, Trump got more VOTES than she did during the primaries, but she will beat Cruz there. If Kasich is VP, then OH is not a problem and PA, MI and NH are all in play.
“Look at every other swing state. In New Hampshire, Trump trails in every poll this year, most recently by eight points. In Florida, Clinton leads by eight in the latest poll and 2.2 percent in the RealClearPolitics average. Clinton beat Trump in the only Iowa poll. Clinton beat Trump by 17 points in the only Virginia poll this year.”
Hillary will win VA, Trump or whoever is the nominee needs to win OH, FL, PA.
It looks really bad for any republican EXCEPT for Trump.
I think it’s Baloney. I think Hillary has so many seriously negative issues running along with her in her campaign that outweigh anything Trump has negative against him.
It would be nice if Trump could pull his foot out of his mouth, but then that’s not Trump.
I’m still a Cruz person that will vote Trump if that’s my choice against Satan’s granny, because I know BS when I see/hear it, therefore I use the same BS meter for Trump, and this is what I see. Hillary has serious baggage, and so much of it she can’t hide it, and it’s so bad she can’t hide behind it. What’s Trump got? Nothing the press can make me believe. Go Cruz, and go Trump. Kick butt. May the best man.
The only whining I see is from Cruz
The guy whines about Trump all the time
Even when Cruz wins, he whines
So yes, Pamper’s Cruzers is an appropriate term
And it is funny, Pampers did market a diaper called Pamper’s Cruisers.......
But I guess that went over your head
Yeah, sure. Right after Mitt, McCain, Gore, Dole, and a few others.
You really think Cruz will be popular?
Really?
Let me offer what I think is a fair answer. Trump already has most likely 90-95% name recognition. Most of those folks have an opinion of him. For this reason the polls can be considered fairly legit. The results are very very unfavorable. It would take almost a miracle to change the perception of the electorate.
Trump is tailored made for Hillary who is master at playing the victim card.
Much the same was said of Reagan when he ran for Governor of California....and later President.
I have to be honest. I haven’t met one liberal, and there are many that I still have contacts with in the city, who has even remotely considered voting for trump.
moderates and independents he can get. Liberals voting for him is a fantasy.
Sure needs to use a lot of words to make a very simple point. Experienced and media sanctioned taxpayerfunded annointed democrats and republicans have delivered nothing but bad laws, world confusion on policy and alliances, monetary policy on life support, and this hack wants to lecture me on coming back for a fourth helping of this crap stew?
MSM picking the republican candidate, again.
Romney/McCain 2016
“Because they’re up in the polls!”
I don't think he has a single clue about what he should do if he got elected. He has no ideological core, beyond his unerring belief in the awesomeness of Trump.
I don't know where he goes with that sort of focus - but the ideological wing of the Democratic Party will promise him shiney things and he'll go along, because why shouldn't he go along with the Democrats to get things done. He has no ideological differences with them, other than he wants to build a wall and they don't. They'll concede that point, let him build a wall, while they get concessions from him on how the immigrants can all get here legally.
And Obamacare is very confusing so he'll just go to single payer, and the Dems will convince him that he's getting a great deal because it will mean no more Obamacare. And his worshippers will also think he won that one.
What's important is that he makes deals and gets things done. Stupid things, rotten things, harmful things - doesn't matter.
He's a deal maker. Best since Bob Dole, I'm guessing.
Others just consider him the frontrunner with the most states and delegates won, by far, along with more than 2 million votes received than any other candidate.
I wish to hell you folks would quit comparing Mr. Trump to President Reagan. They are not alike in any way.
“You can be a boorish bully toward men in ways you can’t toward women.”
Just like you couldn’t question Obama because he is black. If Trump would lose so badly to Mrs. Clinton, how is it that Sanders is kicking her butt and Trump is kicking all the other Repub candidate’s butts. But Kasich is the only one who can beat Mrs. Clinton?
I’ve read many of your posts. You are either completely delusional are a paid troll. Nothing you say has any bearing on any issue as you have zero credibility.
If Trump can’t win, no one from the GOP can.
The GOPe has already tried two loser squishes in a row now, so a third won’t fare any better.
And WAY too many people find Cruz totally despicable, creepy, and/or appearing to be fanatically religious, including many in the GOP, not to mention Cruz has ZERO cross-over appeal; if anything, Cruz has negative cross-over appeal.
I personally know a whole smorgasbord of folks chomping at the bit to vote for Trump BECAUSE he’s a total outsider beholden to no campaign donors or other power players, and yet they would never vote for Cruz in a million years. And the kicker is that many of these people are Democrats, even some who voted for Obama, who are completely sickened at what has been going on and are desperate to vote for a total outsider as they see that as the only chance anything might actually change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.