Trump Is Collapsing in Wisconsin: And that’s really bad for his delegate math

Slate ^ | March 30, 2016 | Jim Newell

[Freedom56v2]

Oh I think the GOPe-financed 24/7 negative ads and GOPe RINO den of Ryan, Priebus and Walker (who got a payoff of Debt from Cruz) may have had something to do with it! Sheesh!!

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Nobody on FR smokes weed”

Yeh that’s the ticket. LOL!

[jpsb]

Deliberately ignorant-—they won’t even spend a minute to TRY to learn things about the issues and their candidate.

Perfect description, BUMP!

[mongrel]

Great to know. You read it wrong, insult the guy who wrote it, insist you’re right, finally admit you read it wrong and and make excuses for it. And I’m the asshole. Sounds like you’re learning your craft well from Trump.

[nathanbedford]

You are miffed because I do not accept your argument and you become petulant. Even less attractive, you resort to condescension and personal attack.

Your point is that in 1980 Ronald Reagan came from far behind and won that election and therefore Donald Trump will do the same in 2016. In order for your argument to be rational much less persuasive you have to contend that the election of 2016 is identical to the context of the election held thirty-six years ago. In other words you must show that you are arguing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

What is different about the context today? Immigration. The demographics of the electoral college have so been altered that some states, such as California, are simply now out of reach of the Republican Party. Reagan took California four times, twice as governor and twice as president. There is simply no chance whatsoever that either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump will take California in 2016. The context changes so we are no longer comparing apples to apples.

I have asked you to support your argument and to show us that the negatives of Ronald Reagan in 1980 are the equivalent of the negatives of Trump in 2016.I have asked for data, you reply with animus and condescension.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks.

[odawg]

I know I should not bother, but I will try one more time.

“You read it wrong,”

The part I quoted to you was not even on my mind when I posted him. What was on my mind was the vitriolic listing of Trump’s supposed sins and crimes. That was the unhinged part I was referring to. It was unhinged. It was pissy. It was infantile. I have not retracted that.

I have read at least some of that man’s posts for some time. I use to agree mostly with him. But he seems to have lost his mind, gone over to the dark side, with his unreasoning hatred for Trump.

For me, Cruz is hard to take, therefore, I don’t dwell on him, not at all. He is over and so dumb he is helping his own demise.

[nathanbedford]

Donald Trump Is No Ronald Reagan

[Lakeshark]

I'm not miffed at all, nor do I have any animus. More like sadness at your silliness. Once you were considered by many to have good and thoughtful posts. No longer.

Do you really expect DATA from 1980 that will show parallels with now? Good grief, what a strange request.

One thing I said that is incontrovertible: There have been many election years (in our lifetimes) where the person far ahead in the Spring loses in the Fall. Do you really want to challenge that?

Do you really want to challenge that Reagan was further behind in the polls then than Trump is now?

Your silly meme, that the polls now show Trump is going to lose is all I was challenging.

And you know I was right to do so, yet you continue being nonsensical and petty.

[Lakeshark]

Of course he's not, he's Donald Trump.

Neither is Ted Cruz. The problem for you is, Cruz is much less like Reagan than Trump.

Reagan was the best president of the twentieth century, one of the top handful ever. He accomplished lots of things in his life.

So has Trump.

Kindly provide a list of the Cruz accomplishments, and we'll talk further (first term senate, answered it for you).

[nathanbedford]

I did take offense at your meme, that is true

(That was then)

I'm not miffed at all, nor do I have any animus.

(That is now)

[Lakeshark]

Clever.

Petty.

No points.

Nice dodge of the main point............

Noticeable.

[nathanbedford]

Megan Kelly is assailed by Trump supporters and accused of many unnatural acts and motives when she quotes Donald Trump's words right back at him.

You call me "petty" when I quote your own words back at you.

You also called me "clever" so I cleverly deduce that you are Trump supporter.

It is part of the "main point" to read the article the citation of which I had forwarded to you called, "Donald Trump Is No Ronald Reagan" in which the author debunks any comparison between Trump and Reagan and between 1980 and 2016. It might help your disposition if you read it.

[sargon]

All Megyn Kelly does is attack Donald Trump 24/7. Her show isn't "fair and balanced" by any stretch of the imagination.

As usual, you are erudite, eloquent, and dead wrong about Donald Trump...

[nathanbedford]

I thank you, mongrel, for taking up my defense which I only belatedly discovered. I might've been able to defend myself if odawg had sent me notice of his subsequent comments concerning me after his first.

[nathanbedford]

I disagree with you about the fair and balanced nature of Megan Kelly's program, many episodes of which I have seen and judged but there is no question that Trump himself in word and tweet traduced Megan Kelly immediately after the debate in which she had read Trump's own words to him and had the temerity to ask him to explain them.

Trump's supporters then immediately piled on in this forum and elsewhere.

The killing of the messenger has become one of the signal attributes of Donald Trump and those who ape him.

I should know.

[sargon]

That Marquette poll is garbage. 471 respondents with a margin of error of 5.8%?

Contrast that with the Optimus Wisconsin poll that had 6000 respondents, a MOE of 1.14%, and has Donald Trump up 29-25 on Cruz, well outside the MOE.

It's probably close to a tossup, but you're deliberately citing the the most whimsical, wishful, slanted polls in order to suggest how terrible things are for Donald Trump.

It's all just so transparent.

Which candidate you support is your business, but you're acting as nothing more than a clumsy propagandist.

Everybody knows what you're doing and you're not changing any minds, at least not in the direction you hope.

As a matter of fact, your disingenuous pretense of objectivity, combined with your constant and slanted derogation of the GOP frontrunner, is probably driving more people to support Donald Trump than to withdraw their support from him.

Your slavering Trump-hating posts really are the most fragrant steaming bullsh!t I've ever experienced...

[sargon]

Megyn Kelly's overtly anti-Trump shows are routinely slanted against Donald Trump, in numerous cases completely omitting critical facts and context. If you can't see that, then you're not very good at recognizing grade-school propaganda technique.

[nathanbedford]

Killing the Messenger

I should know.

Thank you for confirming for every one who reads this precisely how the Trump swarm operates.

[mongrel]

You’re right, you shouldn’t bother. Because you keep trying to change history. The “vitriolic listing” was the list you elevated as lacking reason. I pointed out that it was a fact based list that was documented and true. As you keep doing, you changed the subject and lied about the facts again. You then said that his list of what would happen when Hillary became president (you assumed Trump) was false.

Now you’re complaining that I’m focusing on something that wasn’t on your mind. IF IT WASN’T IN YOUR MIND, then why are YOU the one who brought it up as exhibit A of how awful nathanbedford’s comment was. I will say this, it is quite trumpian and fascinating to watch you squirm and twist things while trying to claim the moral high ground. All you need to do is apologize. You were clearly wrong and continue to be wrong on so many levels.