Originally Posted By Mr X ***Fifteen minutes over*** Really? What happened? Are you referring to the 'bad' debate, or have some poll numbers come up already?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No new poll numbers out. But general consensus from both conservative and liberal analysts is that although Trump did nothing to damage himself with the minority of GOP voters who love his brand of red meat, he also did absolutely nothing to expand that base. Anyone looking for some degree of substance to the man beneath the bluster certainly found none. His days are numbered.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 We'll see what the polls say, but I don't think anybody else expanded their appeal either, with the possible exceptions of Kasich and Rubio. It's hard to tell with Kasich - he got the biggest cheers, but he clearly had the hometown crowd behind him. And until people start dropping out, Trump doesn't need to expand his base to remain the frontrunner.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Trump's ultra-thin skin may be getting him in trouble. For those who haven't heard, Megan Kelly of Fox News asked Trump a question at the debate about his history of being disrespectful to women. It was a tough but fair question. Trump dismissed it as "politically correct" and dissed Kelly for asking it in the first place. It didn't make him look real good, but the damage could have been contained if he'd kept his big (Tweeting) mouth shut. Instead, the morning after he lit up Twitter with tweets including: "Wow, @megynkelly really bombed tonight. People are going wild on twitter! Funny to watch." and "I really enjoyed the debate tonight even though the @FoxNews trio, especially @megynkelly, was not very good or professional!" He also re-tweeted tweets from fans who trashed Kelly, including one that called Kelly a bimbo. He also showed his displeasure with well-known GOP operative Frank Luntz, who held a focus group that showed discomfort or worse at Trump's debate performance. His tweets about Luntz included ".@FrankLuntz, your so-called "focus groups" are a total joke. Don't come to my office looking for business again. You are a clown!" So far, nothing too unexpected. Trump gets criticized, Trump can't take it, Trump lashes out and trashes those who he think slighted him. The bigger problem came the next day in a CNN interview when he continued to trash Kelly, saying "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Now if you listen to it, (and I'm not one to defend Trump!) it sounds to me like he was just spewing as he does, and briefly couldn't think of a word to say for his second body part, and just said "wherever." But some people took it as him saying, essentially, "Hey, Megan - were you dissing me because it was your time of the month?" This got him disinvited from Erick Erickson's Red State event that most of the GOP candidates are attending. Predictably, Trump lashed out at THIS, calling Erickson a "total loser," and "weak and pathetic." For those of you keeping score at home, he has now dissed Megan Kelly, one of the 2 or 3 biggest stars on Fox News (hugely influential, especially among GOP primary voters), Frank Luntz, one of the most important GOP pollsters/strategists, and Erick Erickson, who has considerable influence in the conservative sphere as well. Even if none of Trump's current supporters drop him for this, I wonder just how many bridges he can burn with conservative leaders and media? That could present a real problem for him if he keeps going. The irony, to me, is the thing that's getting him in the most trouble (the remark about Kelly's blood), may actually have been innocent(ish. This IS Trump we're talking about. "ish" is as good as you're going to get). It just sounded too spontaneously spewed, not something he thought up ahead of time to say (because who would think such a thing up if he really WAS talking about something "hormonal" - the favored euphemism in conservative media about this - and not immediately tell oneself not to say it? Even Trump isn't that boorish, I don't think.) And the same conservative media that typically dismisses liberal criticism of misogynistic statements by various Republicans as "politically correct" and "phony" may now be rallying around a statement that might even have been innocent(ish) or at least didn't mean what they're taking it to mean, as a way of bringing down Trump. Irony indeed.
Originally Posted By Mr X I dunno, RT. ***Despite a debate in which Fox moderators repeatedly attacked him and three days of hostile press coverage which came after it, Donald Trump remains in a commanding lead in the race for the Republican nomination, according to a poll released Sunday evening by NBC News. The results confound weekend press coverage suggesting Trump's campaign was foundering.*** <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-trump-remains-in-commanding-lead-after-debate-drama">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...te-drama</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's become increasingly obvious that Trump has teflon for his fanboys. Nothing he says seemingly can turn them off. Hence his remaining steady in the polls. But for someone to get the nomination without the blessing of the party elites? That hasn't happened for a very, very long time (arguably ever). It really would be something new, and I don't expect to see it this time either. Trump's numbers didn't go up after the debate that he dominated (at least in terms of attention) either. That tells you he does have a ceiling. And 25% is a great number when there are 17 candidates. Not so great when it's cut down to 3 or 4. We are in uncharted waters in the post-Citizens United world, though, when more people can stay in longer than previously, as long as they have a billionaire or two backing them. So you might have a dozen (if not 17) candidates for quite some time. The old adage goes that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." And in the entire primary age (i.e. since the days when the conventions actually chose the candidates), the GOP has eventually coalesced around one candidate, typically with establishment blessing. I suspect the same will happen this year, though it may not be Bush; if he remains as boring as he's been and polls continue to show someone like Rubio as "fresh" and with a better chance to beat Clinton, they may coalesce around him. But for the first time in memory, we MIGHT have a situation where no one has enough delegates after the primaries and we have a brokered convention. Say, if Trump actually wins some early contests with 20-25% of the vote, and then several others split the various states after the field is winnowed down. I still find that unlikely, but it seems an actual possibility for the first time in memory. Then the GOP would have a real problem with moderates if Trump is seen as any sort of kingmaker. Or, obviously, if he wasn't granted the nomination, stormed out, called everyone in the party "losers" and ran on a third party.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Trump knows that he holds all the cards at the moment. He knows that he can't get elected on his own, but he also knows that if he runs as a third party candidate the GOP can't win the election at all. So he is the center of attention at the moment and history tells us that if Trump loves anything it is being the center of attention. Unless Trump modestly bows out at some point, the GOP isn't going to win the White House in 2016.
