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

The April 5 Republican primary in Wisconsin is looking less like a toss-up between Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz and more like a probable win for Cruz. This would be a fairly grave problem for Trump in his effort to reach 1,237 delegates ahead of the convention. Further, a new Wisconsin poll from a well-respected outfit shows horrific favorability ratings for Trump in the state among all voters, mirroring his recent national downturn. If he can’t reach enough delegates ahead of the convention, and his support shows signs of erosion in the final contests—all while his overall favorability rating dives from pretty terrible to comically toxic—it’s going to be that much harder for him to convince delegates to stick with him in Cleveland.

The just-released Marquette Law School poll for March finds Cruz at 40 percent in the state, with Trump at 30 percent and John Kasich at 21 percent. Trump’s 30 percent is actually stable from the February version of the poll … when there were three more candidates still in the race. Cruz’s support, meanwhile, has shot up 21 points in a month, while Kasich’s has increased 13. The once dearly held theory of the Trump ceiling—that his support would never exceed one-third of the primary electorate and thus would not grow even once the field had consolidated—has been shattered in some states. If this poll holds, though, the theory appears to apply to Wisconsin....

Your distortions are clear for all to see.

I don't support Ted Cruz, and I express my opinions about things he's done, but I don't have to continuously post hateful exaggeration, derogation, and half-truths about the man, and my posts regarding him don't drip with dismissive derision.

You are part and parcel of the slanted campaign of demonization against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is not half the demonic threat which you assert and imply, and your only purpose for posting is to assassinate his character in a hysterically exaggerated and unfair way. In other words, you see yourself as a propagandist who advocates on behalf of Ted Cruz. But you are a transparent propagandist.

I have no desire to peruse any more of your hatred, and I in turn try not to be hateful towards candidates I oppose on principle, or their misguided supporters.

The same cannot be said of you, IMHO.

As I stated previously, you are part and parcel of the relentless and distorted smear campaign against Donald Trump.

Quite simply, Donald Trump's flaws do not justify the level of raw hatred which you display.

Your eloquence and erudition, rather than disguising your malice, serve only to emphasize and accentuate it.

You are, IMHO, a honey-tongued serpent who is consumed with hatred for a flawed yet decent man who, on balance, is a good American who loves his country, and who will make a great President, presuming your ilk in the Establishment/Media/Left/GOPe/Cruz campaign are not successful at achieving your evil, amoral, and Machiavellian goal: personally destroying another human being who wants to work with the People to make America great again.

So you, sir, may go to Hell. Please don't respond to me ever again if you can help it, and I'll do the same.

The new Marquette poll finds his favorability rating at 22 percent, compared with a 70 percent unfavorability rating. That is … bad? No. It would be an insult to the quiet dignity of the word “bad” to call that spread bad. A 22–70 favorability spread is in the mid- to high “holy shits.” Sure, that number includes all voters, not just Republicans. But if Trump has a 22 percent overall favorability and 30 percent of the Republican vote, that means there aren’t a whole lot of Republican primary voters out there for him to sway. (My post #33 quoting article)

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to know that Reagan's numbers against Carter in the polls of Spring 1980 were even worse than Trump's are now. (Your post #37)

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to tell us what those "numbers" meant-were they Reagan's negatives or were they simply a poll of preferences?

Big, big difference (my posts #40)

Either your memory really is bad, or possibly the idea of not remembering how Reagan's negatives as an "extremist" a "warmonger" and a "stupid B grade actor" weren't the reason for his bad polling is a thing you want to avoid on this forum. (Your post #41)

You opened the subject of comparing Reagan's numbers to Trump's. Rather than an attempt to avoid the subject, I said it should be further explored and I asked about the nature of the numbers. (My post #43)

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.

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. (My post #165)

When you won't recognize the simple truth that Reagan was further behind than Trump was at this point in polling for the 1980 election, you're being petty. (Your post #201)

At no time have I disputed your assertion that the polling numbers for Reagan were worse than they are today for Trump. That is because I am unaware of the data, I simply want to know how the data are defined, polling numbers or approval numbers?.

I have asked you time and again to confirm that the numbers for Reagan in 1980 are the equivalent with the numbers for Trump in 2016, specifically, are we comparing preference numbers to approval numbers? Time and again you have declined to respond.

I have asked you to consider the article I supplied to you specifically addressing your point. No response.

You can call me " petty" or you can acknowledge that we have an honest dispute about the meaning of the data, that I have been asking for data, and you have declined to provide data to support your proposition.

You are despicable. There is scarcely any act more discreditable than to call someone a liar repeatedly without a single example to justify libeling a man's character in such a manner. When called out to justify your libel you repeat your slanders and run away.

You called me a liar and worse (if there can be anything worse) for twelve paragraphs in your last reply but when put to the test test you cannot provide even a single example where I lied. Not a single example but you can repeat your slander, "Your distortions are clear for all to see."

Humiliated because you are unable to back up your libels, you wax indignant to cover your retreat:

So you, sir, may go to Hell. Please don't respond to me ever again if you can help it, and I'll do the same.

You are a slanderer, a bully, a coward and a moral leper.

I have noted examples of your distortions in my previous responses. I don't care to go through that routine exercise any longer.

I don't recall using the word "liar" to refer to you. Propagandist, honey-tongued serpent, and so on, but if I did slip the word "liar" in there somewhere, I don't recall it.

Once and for all, what I'm saying is that you, sir, are engaging in character assassination of Donald Trump, in every way imaginable. You repeat the most slanted propaganda, you selectively cite the most patently inaccurate polls, you omit relevant facts and context, you distort positions and statements, and you combine all that with liberal use of pejoratives and name-calling.

In summary, you exhibit absolutely nothing but hatred, disdain, and disrespect for Mr. Trump unequivocally. You're incapable of saying one kind word about the man.

You're serving your purpose, which is to be a tireless demonizer of Donald Trump on behalf of Ted Cruz, and by extension on behalf of the System which is intent on personally destroying him.

There's not the slightest semblance of balance or fairness in your posts. No nuance whatsoever. Just unabashed, unrestrained contempt.

As such, I have no use for you.

I may think Ted Cruz would not make a good President, but I don't find it at all necessary to malign the man as if he's the devil incarnate.

It is non-stop, unprincipled calumny such as yours, amplified a thousandfold by the Cruz campaign, GOPe, Mass Media, Hysterical Left and their Establishment allies, and all other such ilk, that is poisoning this primary cycle to the point where you are going to alienate and enrage the most energized segment of voters, taint the nomination process, and cause untold damage to the Republican Party.

This scorched earth campaign cannot end well, no matter how it ends.

I can't carry on a political dialogue with People who are utterly devoid of reason or balance; People who cannot get beyond their knee-jerk hatred for a certain individual; People who act as if the devil himself is running for the Presidential nomination of Republican party.

There is much merit to the Trump campaign, there are material reasons that it is Revolutionary and full of potential, and no other person stands in a position to shake the DC Establishment of both parties to its very core. Nothing could be more important, and yet all you can do in response is demonize the man.

So there's no common ground here.

Cruz supporters are so strident and wrapped up in installing their candidate at any cost, that they've gleefully joined in on the 24/7/365 slanted character assassination campaign against Donald Trump; they are doing and offering nothing else. It's just "Anybody But Trump", blindly, hysterically, and despicably...

Your last post.

May I remind you what I actually said in my original post:

A man who once had principles of intellectual honesty ought to know that Reagan's numbers against Carter in the polls of Spring 1980 were even worse than Trump's are now.

Aren't you glad we didn't listen in 1980 to that line?

I sure am.

Anyone who looks at today's polls concerning a November election and claims they show ANYTHING at all valid knows little about history.

Just ask Carter how his second term went.......

And here you are still trying to pretend I said something else (very petty discussion methodology), and here you are trying to pretend that Reagan's bad polling couldn't have been because of negatives (very intellectually dishonest).

Instead, you might have said, you know, that's a good point. But you didn't and you won't because you seem to prefer being petty and intellectually dishonest. Being obtuse doesn't hide all that.

Very sad. You might want to rethink what it means when a person becomes obtuse, petty, and intellectually dishonest.

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.