Trump will destroy the Republican party by… leading Hillary in the polls

posted at 1:01 pm on January 9, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

So this morning I was reading this piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post where he explained how Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination would rip the heart out of the Republican Party. In case you’re wondering if I’m engaging in a bit of hyperbole at Michael’s expense, the actual title of the article is, Trump’s nomination would rip the heart out of the Republican Party.

Every Republican of the type concerned with winning in November has been asking the question (at least internally): “What if the worst happens?” …

Cruz’s nomination would represent the victory of the hard right — religious right and tea party factions — within the Republican coalition. After he loses, the ideological struggles within the GOP would go on.

No, the worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Donald Trump. It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton would end up. Clinton has manifestly poor political skills, and Trump possesses a serious talent for the low blow. But Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.

Gerson goes on to opine that Trumps nomination would reduce the Republican Party to “an enterprise of squalid prejudice.” But he also notes that he has no idea how Trump might fare in the general election against Hillary Clinton because she has, “manifestly poor political skills” while The Donald is a master of the “low blow.”

If nothing else, there’s a new poll out from Fox News today which might answer at least one of Michael’s questions for him. The poll begins with the usual list of numbers for the GOP primary which we’ve seen too many times to count and aren’t worth any fresh analysis here today. Trump 35, Cruz 20, Rubio 13, Carson 10, Bush 4, Fiorina 3, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But then we get to the general election head to head match-ups and things get a bit more interesting.

Clinton currently ties or trails the Republicans in each of the possible 2016 matchups tested.

Rubio (50-41 percent) and Cruz (50-43 percent) perform best against the presumptive Democratic nominee. Rubio has a nine-point advantage and Cruz is up by seven.

Trump tops Clinton by three points (47-44 percent) and Bush ties at 44 percent each.

Hillary isn’t having a good week, what with her emails showing that she was snipping off security classifications to mail around sensitive documents from her bathroom server, and now this? The only one out of the GOP field that she can manage to beat (or at least tie) is Bush, and he’s currently polling slightly behind “Having Your Wisdom Teeth Removed By A Squirrel.”

But let’s return to Gerson’s premise for a moment and the future of the Enterprise of Squalid Prejudice. Perhaps it’s just me, but I think that Michael is missing a rather key point as to what’s happening inside the GOP these days. Trump’s policies, such as they are, don’t seem to have much to do with his popularity. Some of our readers long ago reached a conclusion about the current state of the GOP establishment which took others among us a bit longer to grasp. There was a “Let it Burn” theme to the feedback we were getting even before Trump got into the race. I’ll confess that I was far afield from that point of view last spring, but the recent passage of the omnibus spending bill really seemed to bring a lot more people on board with the idea that the current state of affairs simply wasn’t acceptable.

While Gerson frets over Donald Trump “destroying the Republican Party” there were obviously already a lot of voters out there who weren’t seeing such a prospect as a particularly bad thing. In fact, one of the biggest concerns being aired was the possibility that The Donald might win the most votes and delegates in the primary and then see the nomination stolen from him at the convention by a coalition of party establishment regulars. If that turns out to be the case, then I’m afraid it truly will be the end of the party as we know it for a at least a decade, if not a generation. To a somewhat lesser extent the same could be said of Ted Cruz, a man not quite so “outside Washington” as Trump, but still despised by many of his colleagues in the establishment for upsetting the apple cart entirely.

But what happens if Trump takes the nomination and then, as this poll suggests is increasingly possible, goes on to defeat Hillary for the presidency? Well… we’ll have lived to see interesting times. I have no predictions as to what comes after that, but rest assured that I’ll keep my seat belt fastened and my table tray locked in the upright position.

TrumpThumbs


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

Bmore

Schadenfreude on January 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM

And a national trade deficit doesn’t mean that any particular individual has “sold assets to finance consumption.”

Stop thinking like a fanatical nationalist, and start thinking about people as individuals.

TBSchemer on January 9, 2016 at 10:37 PM

Until those national “public” assets in my local area are sold to outside concerns who don’t have to follow our own laws. Oh, no these guys can build or mine on protected lands. Screw the spotted owl or the sage grouse. Screw some silly desert turtle. On top of my income/property taxes being increased to meet budget shortfalls due to deficit spending on welfare programs.

Or worst, to guarantee those individual assets that were sold to another country or foreign national individual they send in an army. Now all of a sudden nationalism sort of matters doesn’t it?

It’s not a contract. You can’t be born into a contract.

TBSchemer on January 9, 2016 at 11:08 PM

Tell that to the US Supreme Court and Obamacare. The Fed Gov views you as its property to control TBS.

But I’m sure you join me in fighting with force against a clear violation of the 13th amendment. Except that most people will call us domestic terrorists due to them being sheep or too afraid to lose what they still have.

oryguncon on January 10, 2016 at 4:14 PM

“Trump’s nomination would rip the heart out of the Republican Party.”

Here’s a rusty trowel, Donald. Please make it bloody and painful.

Cicero43 on January 10, 2016 at 4:21 PM

Does a heterosexual couple have the legal right to shack up, or is that a privilege?

blink on January 10, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Not in Arizona or at least cohabitation was illegal there.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 4:56 PM

Does a heterosexual couple have the legal right to shack up, or is that a privilege?
.
blink on January 10, 2016 at 3:07 PM

.

I honestly don’t know …
.
listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 3:18 PM

.
You don’t know if a heterosexual couple has the legal right to live together? Wow, your brain is completely unable to discuss this issue rationally.

Let me ask you this. Do you have the legal right to cross your street?
.
blink on January 10, 2016 at 3:31 PM

.
What I was getting at, was that there have been all kinds of laws against things relating to sexual conduct. For example, adultery use to be illegal, and if caught, there was some degree of punishment handed down from the local magistrate.
.
For the sake of your analogy, it’s reasonable to assume that “shacking-up”/living together is a “right”, as well as walking across the street.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 5:05 PM

Wow…you have ONE POLL showing Trump beating Hillary, when every other poll shows her beating him by at least 5 – 6 points.

Congrats, Jazz.

I know you’ve been waiting for this outlier for awhile now. Being the lone Trump Tard blogger on Hot Air must be lonely.

DRayRaven on January 10, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Trump in a landslide.

Hillary is toxic waste

SpongePuppy on January 10, 2016 at 5:31 PM

SpongePuppy on January 10, 2016 at 5:31 PM

.
Nonsense; toxic waste isn’t all that bad.

listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 5:40 PM

I know, I’m just too intelligent for the lot of you. What a jerk I am to keep pointing it out by making logical arguments based in hard data and established theory.

TBSchemer on January 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Please.

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 6:45 PM

Remember, if you guys were supporting Cruz instead of Trump, no libertarian would be calling Hillary the lesser evil.

TBSchemer on January 10, 2016 at 6:22 AM

Stop.

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 6:45 PM

Please, I support myself just fine, doing work that’s more intellectually demanding than anyone else here is capable of. Turns out, it’s pretty easy and fun to crush Trump supporters on my lunch break and weekends.

TBSchemer on January 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM

The.

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 6:46 PM

I would rather have former Mexicans in this country than current fascists. Why do you disagree?

TBSchemer on January 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Stupid.

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 6:47 PM

Wow…you have ONE POLL showing Trump beating Hillary, when every other poll shows her beating him by at least 5 – 6 points.

Congrats, Jazz.

I know you’ve been waiting for this outlier for awhile now. Being the lone Trump Tard blogger on Hot Air must be lonely.

DRayRaven on January 10, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Speaking of stupid ^^^^

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 6:48 PM

The threat of loser Jeb yanking the rug out from under Trump at the convention is real and would be the death knell of an already dying party.

Koa on January 10, 2016 at 6:59 PM

Wow…you have ONE POLL showing Trump beating Hillary, when every other poll shows her beating him by at least 5 – 6 points.

Congrats, Jazz.

I know you’ve been waiting for this outlier for awhile now. Being the lone Trump Tard blogger on Hot Air must be lonely.

DRayRaven on January 10, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Wow! One poll after [supposedly] every poll was showing him losing 12 months out!

What kind of whining you gonna do when all the polls show her being trounced by Trump, RayRay?

Judge_Dredd on January 10, 2016 at 7:27 PM

was illegal there.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 4:56 PM

blink on January 10, 2016 at 7:56 PM

Was meaning I don’t know if it still is, since I last lived there in 91.

RickB on January 10, 2016 at 8:14 PM

blink on January 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM

.
Nooo . . . . . I answered this up above … recently.
.
Only only one (1) male, and one (1) female member of mankind, “joining together as one flesh” constitutes a “marriage.”
.
(but I’ll repeat…)

Physical, sexual intimacy between same-sex/gender partners does NOT constitute “joined together, as one flesh” in the eyes of the One who first coined the phrase.

He “formed” one (1) male , and shortly after He “BUILT” one (1) female … both in His image, after His likeness.
.

Yeah, she’s brick … ♫ ♪ ♫ … HOUSE … ♪ ♫ . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 10:20 PM

Does a heterosexual couple have the legal right to shack up, or is that a privilege?
.
blink on January 10, 2016 at 3:07 PM

.
Not in Arizona or at least cohabitation WAS (past tense) illegal there.
.
RickB on January 10, 2016 at 4:56 PM
.

(points out the ‘past tense’ of the word “was” )
.
blink on January 10, 2016 at 7:56 PM

Was meaning I don’t know if it still is, since I last lived there in 91.
.
RickB on January 10, 2016 at 8:14 PM

.
HAH … I was RIGHT to suspect it might not be legal (everywhere)
.
(now gets up and struts around the room, chin up, chest out, feeling smug & superior)

listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 10:32 PM

bluefox on January 9, 2016 at 8:18 PM

No problem, Bluefox, I’m glad you’re here. Originally, conservatism was balanced budgets, no foreign interventions (consistent with Pres. Washington’s warning), preservation of the culture, vetting of immigrants, law and order, protection of American industries against foreign dumping. During this era, we were overwhelmingly #1.

Then these different Republican factions started calling themselves conservatives. They basically stole the moniker and corrupted it, completely flipping policies 180 degrees, in some cases.

I think a lot of us are on the same page now.

cimbri on January 10, 2016 at 1:09 AM

Thank you, and I totally agree. Since the election of 2008, the massive corruption has been exposed and hopefully the rose colored glasses have been removed from the American peoples eyes.

bluefox on January 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM

Donald Trump just tweeted
As President I will rebuild the Depth of Justice with someone who can bring criminals to justive,SEAN PENN.

IXXINY on January 10, 2016 at 11:29 PM

blink on January 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM

.
Point it out, or that’s an empty reply.

listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 2:06 AM

I’m not a big fan of some of Trump’s rhetoric when he goes over the top.

But I’ll say this:

1. He is hitting on all cylinders when it comes to hot button issues for the average person. The economy, immigration, terrorism, government corruption, and it’s all kind of summed up for a lot of people in his Make America Great Again. People feel America is becoming more of a third world cesspool than leading the world as a great nation.

2. He is fearless in attacking anyone who attacks him and he comes out on top every time. I can remember the very painful Mitt Romney as Obama hammered him like a rabid dog going after a kitten. Forget that most of it was untrue or at best a half truth, Mitt just stood there and took it without a peep. I can just imagine what would happen if Candy Crowley blurted out “Hillary’s RIGHT!!” during a Trump Hillary debate. Candy would be the intensive care unit suffering form a verbal shotgun blast from Trump. He’d probably have his security escort from the studio.

3. Hillary is in trouble. Yes she has a small army of complete morons who adore her, but she is vulnerable at every level on every issue. Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Christi, and Fiorina would eat her alive during debates and in ads.

4. Trump isn’t boasting when he says it can close deals. I wouldn’t be surprised if he convinced a significant number of blacks and Hispanics that his policies will put them in jobs that will make life better for them.

5. I’m sure I could come up with more, but I’ll end with this. Trump’s comment that he has a Pen and a Phone to undo many of Obama’s Executive Orders didn’t get much press, but everyone I know got it loud and clear. But I don’t think it will end there. I’m convinced that Trump will pull together talented people into the government agencies, he will find ways to get rid of the incompetent and corrupt, and he will have the agencies start rolling back rules and regulations that are stifling this economy. In a very short time, he could change the mood from pessimistic to optimistic and that kind of swing along with streamlined regulations could give the economy a chance to roar.

There is a reason pundits and politicians are underestimating Trump so badly. It’s because they are too detached from the people that they don’t realize how much anger there is out here, especially towards the Republican establishment. Rubio would be doing much better right now if he had not joined the Gang of 8 which was the personification of establishment politics as usual.

I think this is a strong Republican field and any one of them would make an effective President and they have the skills to crush Hillary or Bernie in debates and I’m stockpiling cases of popcorn in my garage for the ad wars to come.

BMF on January 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM

I’m sure this has been said over and over again in this many pages, but….

They’re gonna call the republican nominee a racist no matter who it is, no matter what their policy positions, now matter how much pandering they do. Leftists only have one playbook, and they won’t ever deviate from it, because it’s so effective at fooling people into handing them unlimited power. This has been true for centuries.

The only candidate I’ve seen take it to them, both the media and the leftists (but I repeat myself) is Trump. And your premise is right on the money. It’s gonna burn anyway, there’s nothing we can do to stop it anymore. Might as well be entertaining.

I’ll vote for Trump if he gets the nom.

runawayyyy on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM

I was RIGHT to suspect it might not be legal (everywhere)
.
listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 10:32 PM

.
No, you weren’t. It’s not illegal anywhere.
.
blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:38 AM

.
The operative word in my comment is “might”.

Here’s the link, back
to the conversation, in sequence.

At 4:56 PM yesterday, RickB told us that he knows for a surety that it was illegal when he last lived in Airizona, in 1991.
.

(now gets up and struts around the room, chin up, chest out, feeling smug & superior)
.
listens2glenn on January 10, 2016 at 10:32 PM

.
I think that just makes it more embarrassing for you.
.
blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:38 AM

.
That only happens everyday … (b l u s h ).
.
I’m still waiting for the ‘back-tracking’ specifics, to your charge of ‘self-contradiction and inconsistency’, on my part.

I don’t believe there is anything conflicting or inconsistent between my January 10, 2016 at 10:20 PM comment, and any of my previous comments, unless you can point it out.

listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM

If the Republican Party nominates anyone with a chance of defeating the Democrat nominee, then there lots of people who will be predicting Armageddon or Ragnarok or whatever doom scenario fits their world view.

I’m not a big Trump fan, but if people like Gerson want to be taken seriously, they should stop being so ridiculous. Trump has his flaws, but he’s not the harbinger of doom.

Seems like pundits these days think they have to out-doomsday their peers in order to get any attention. Reminds me of a daycare center in which each of the three year-olds are trying to out-cry all of the others. Perhaps we should be more worried about the future of editorial commentary journalism in this nation than whether The Donald ends up being the Republican Nominee.

s1im on January 11, 2016 at 3:52 PM

I’m still waiting for the ‘back-tracking’ specifics, to your charge of ‘self-contradiction and inconsistency’, on my part.
.
listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM

.
Why? You’re inconsistent.
.
blink on January 12, 2016 at 1:29 AM

.
I disagree . . . . . I maintain I have been consistent in my claims that a “marriage” only exists where you have one (1) male, and one (1) female member of mankind, “joining together as one flesh” … period.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2016 at 3:08 AM

I disagree . . . . . I maintain I have been consistent in my claims that a “marriage” only exists where you have one (1) male, and one (1) female member of mankind, “joining together as one flesh” … period.
.
listens2glenn on January 12, 2016 at 3:08 AM

.
No, you previously claimed that the couple merely had to live together to consider themselves married.
.
blink on January 12, 2016 at 10:37 AM

It seems as if you favor saying whatever you think works best in any given moment rather than being consistent in your beliefs. You’re a dream witnes . . . for an attorney conducting a cross-examination of you! Your inconsistent trip ups could probably win his entire case for him.
.
blink on January 12, 2016 at 10:42 AM

.
Still no specific reference . . . . . BLINK IS “LYING”.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM

You gotta link to it, blink … or you’re without credibility.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10