RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "Donald Trump's call for a Muslim exclusion act (which drew cheers at the rally where Trump proposed it) has drawn an almost-universal backlash nationwide, yet Trump is sticking to his guns. Is there any way this helps him?"

Donald Trump. (photo: Jonathan Drake/Reuters/Corbis)
Donald Trump. (photo: Jonathan Drake/Reuters/Corbis)

Only One Thing Can Stop Donald Trump

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

11 December 15


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: Donald Trump's ban on Muslims entering the U.S., Obama's national address, and Spotlight and the state of investigative journalism.

onald Trump's call for a Muslim exclusion act (which drew cheers at the rally where Trump proposed it) has drawn an almost-universal backlash nationwide, yet Trump is sticking to his guns. Is there any way this helps him?

Doesn’t it seem a century ago when Trump committed what was supposed to be a cardinal sin, particularly to Republicans, and insulted the war hero John McCain? Trump was pronounced politically dead back then — this was in July — and we needn’t catalogue all of the times he’s risen like Lazarus since, after each racist, xenophobic, misogynist, or just plain lunatic pronouncement theoretically ended his campaign. So when people talk now, as you put it, of “an almost-universal backlash” to his latest and perhaps most outrageous thunderbolt of bigotry, it depends on how you define universal. That universe does not include Trump’s fans. In a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released yesterday, some 68 percent of respondents said they would bolt the GOP if their hero decided to run as an independent. In other words, this latest episode, which took place just after that survey, should help Trump as all of his other outrages have: He’ll remain at or near the top of Republican polls because he is telling his audience what it wants to hear in ever louder tones. And the “universal backlash” of the elites will only make him more of a hero with his supporters, who revel in the disdain of the Establishments of both parties and the press.

There are not enough Trump partisans to capture the presidency, no matter how much some liberals liken his rise to those of Hitler and Mussolini. There may well not be enough Trump supporters to win him the GOP nomination (though it cannot be ruled out). But there are certainly enough to destroy his party for the foreseeable future by branding it as a haven for bigots at a time when America is on its inexorable path to be a white-minority nation. So you’d think that those now at the top of the GOP would try to banish Trump by any and all available means, if only out of self-interest. That’s still not happening. Those who wield the strongest anti-Trump language among his primary opponents are those with rock-bottom poll numbers (e.g., Lindsey Graham, who told him to “go to hell”) and no clout. Jeb (!) Bush, whose poll numbers are also near rock bottom, has also pumped up his anti-Trump rhetoric, but he’s still too low-energy and too late, and he has no moral standing to attack Trump’s Islamophobia since he only recently (like Ted Cruz) proposed banning Syrian refugees who aren’t Christians. Party titans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have condemned Trump’s latest jeremiad, but they are wusses, too fearful of both him and his fans to say they would disown him if he got the party’s nomination. (Jeb has also recently reaffirmed that he’d support Trump over Hillary.) Cruz and Marco Rubio, besides indulging in their own Muslim-bashing, have been pointedly mild in their criticisms of Trump and his views because they hope to annex his crazies should he flame out.

So who can stop Trump? Not the fat-cat GOP donors whose doomed anti-Trump strategies keep being floated to the press. Not the earnest members of the reality-based community who diligently write articles explaining that, yes, Trump’s latest proposal is unconstitutional, impossible to implement, racist, and a boost to the very ISIS ideologues Trump wants to destroy. Not the fact-checkers who show that almost every bit of evidence Trump cites, from nonexistent crowds of Muslims cheering 9/11 in New Jersey to junk polls of Muslim-American sentiment, is a lie. Trump’s adherents are going to accept Trump’s facts, just as they have accepted such “facts” from the other conservative leaders who have claimed Barack Obama was born in Africa and that climate change is a hoax.

No, the only people who can stop Trump are the obvious ones: those who actually vote or caucus in Republican primary states. Their verdict will be decisive, and come February we will start to hear from them directly in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (where Trump’s ban-Muslims oration played to a standing ovation last weekend). It’s been a standard refrain of Establishment Republicans since the summer that Trump’s toxic views don’t represent their party — and, indeed, if Republicans don’t actually vote for Trump, he’s done, and probably as an independent as well. But what if he does attract voters in numbers consistent with his polling? In less than two months from now, we are finally going to start getting a definitive answer to the question that’s riveted us for months: Who are the Republicans?

Most GOP candidates responding to President Obama's call for calm and patience in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting attacked his address almost immediately (or sooner — Cruz offered a rebuttal before it had even begun). Was Obama right to take the higher ground, or should he have spoken more decisively?

If “more decisively” means “more angrily,” then Obama was doomed to failure. The GOP presidential field owns rage. Obama, as is his wont, was rational, not a “dead or alive” gunslinger like his predecessor, or an abject fearmonger like Trump. But if you look at what his critics had to say, including the more well-behaved neocons at The Wall Street Journal, you don’t find an alternative policy to what America is doing now — unless you count Cruz’s promise to institute a war plan to “carpet-bomb them into oblivion” and Trump’s vow to “bomb the shit out of them.” You don’t, for instance, hear any of these critics proposing that specific and large numbers of American troops be committed to the cause. You mainly find anti-Obama vitriol and vague calls for more “muscular” action that doesn’t go much beyond the “no-fly zone” that Clinton has also endorsed.

Two footnotes to Obama’s address. Forgive me for being a former drama critic, but, really, who had the brilliant idea of having the president leave his expected position behind the Oval Office desk to declaim from a podium planted in front of it? At the faux Oval Office where I work on the television series Veep, there was much talk the morning after that if we had put our show’s hapless president in such an awkward setting, we would have been criticized for exaggerating White House incompetence. Second: One politician who was widely praised by political pros for having an effective reaction to the San Bernardino killings was Chris Christie, whose constant invocation of 9/11 after the bloodbath was thought to reignite his flailing presidential campaign. But the latest New Hampshire poll from CNN/WMUR, released this week and taken after San Bernardino, finds Christie third, with 9 percent — almost identical to how Rudy Giuliani performed in the New Hampshire primary during his disastrous “noun-verb-9/11” presidential run of 2008. In first, with 32 percent, is Trump, up from 26 percent in September, and ahead of the runner-up, Rubio (14 percent), by nearly two-to-one.

After watching Spotlight, Tom McCarthy's film about the Boston Globe's 2002 sex-abuse investigation of the Catholic Church, the New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wondered where that kind of local investigative reporting might still be possible in today's vanishing newspaper industry. Did you see the film as a eulogy for a journalism world gone by?

To an extent, yes. It’s hard to miss: the AOL billboard juxtaposed with the Globe’s headquarters in one shot, and an early scene of a reporter’s newsroom retirement toast that all too painfully prefigures the many forced retirements of his colleagues yet to come. But most of all Spotlight is a celebration of investigative reporting itself — as well as a reminder of how much horrific crime the Catholic Church covered up for so long, in Boston and throughout the world.

Sullivan is right to worry about the future of local investigative reporting in an America with fewer and ever-more-impoverished newspapers. However, it’s worth recalling that some of the greatest investigative reporting in our history has happened in unexpected venues: muckrakers of the progressive era appeared in McClure’s magazine, known more for high-toned literature than fearless journalism; Seymour Hersh’s My Lai massacre exposé was disseminated by the Dispatch News Service, an upstart operation in its infancy. Those who are driven to expose corruption often do find a way, sometimes at considerable personal and financial sacrifice, and there’s no reason to believe that they won’t find outlets and maybe even salary-paying employers in the digital age.

Meanwhile, one of the heroes of Spotlight, the Globe’s then-new editor Martin Baron (captured with remarkable fidelity onscreen by Liev Schreiber), is now the (fairly) new editor of the Washington Post, which is also the beneficiary of a cash infusion from its deep-pocketed new owner, Jeff Bezos. Baron’s brilliance at bringing his readers a hard-hitting news report, investigative and otherwise, is on display daily in a paper that now seems well on its way to reclaiming the glory of its fabled Ben Bradlee era. If you’re not reading it, you should be: It makes you feel that, Spotlight notwithstanding, all in newspapers is not lost. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+63 # rich black 2015-12-11 15:16
If one of the other Republican hopefuls could win both Iowa and New Hampshire, that could be a knockout punch right to Trump's jaw. That, of course, won't happen. Cruz could win Iowa, but he's got no chance of winning New Hampshire. Trump could lose both of those, to two different candidates, and still win the nomination, because next up will be winner-take-all South Carolina, and, in this crowded clown car field, Trump will win that primary with a plurality. After that, he should get the majority of the Nevada caucus votes, and it will be smooth sailing for the Trump Titanic.

Trump is running an adroit fear campaign, and ISIS terrorists couldn't be doing more for him if they were on his payroll. It's right out of the GW Bush playbook. Bush, pre-9/11, was looking like a monkey trying to deal with the bust. Then came the attack on the twin towers, and the monkey became, in his own words, "a war President". That bought the Commander and Chimp seven more years in office.

ISIS is far from done in its quest to push strongman Trump into the US Presidency. A President Trump could be the best thing that could happen to the ISIS recruitment of American Muslims.
+3 # dandevries 2015-12-12 19:27
In any roster of alternative commentators who have reported truthfully and influenced Yankee opinion for good, Rich should rightfully include Ramparts, cited at length again and again by Greg Gandin and Peter Dale Scott, to name the two I've read most recently.
+114 # REDPILLED 2015-12-11 18:32
Trump is NOT our greatest threat, and neither is Daesh/ISIS/ISIL.

Catastrophic climate disaster and nuclear weapons threaten the existence and future of most living creatures on this planet.

Those two existential threats should be the main focus of all media now, not blow dried blowhards!
+93 # guomashi 2015-12-11 18:38
Trump is NOT our greatest threat, and neither is Daesh/ISIS/ISIL.

Catastrophic climate disaster and nuclear weapons threaten the existence and future of most living creatures on this planet.

Those two existential threats should be the main focus of all media now, not blow dried blowhards!

Trump may not be our greatest threat.
People stupid enough to vote for him are our greatest threat. They are the same ones in favor of nuking the middle east etc.
-25 # MidwestTom 2015-12-11 20:00
To me this is entertaining, contributors to RSN are constantly arguing to make sure that every living uninformed voter has a chance to vote. Now Trump is the poster child for why this is a bad policy. Make no mistake, he has significant support among the uninformed voters in BOTH parties. It is not just Republicans that hate the Made in Casting Studio look of all other candidates in both parties.

The masses reproduce much faster than the educated, and there just might be enough of them to put Trump in office. Ex-Senator Vance Hartke once said "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Trump is proving the statement. Every time he makes some stupid statement he gets giant coverage and he rises in the polls. The Republicans are trying everything they can think of to stop him, but nothing works. The masses may finally show their true strength and elect him. The fatal outcome of promoting the vote to anyone who can fog a mirror.
+15 # backwards_cinderella 2015-12-12 05:03
I come from a very highly educated family. One of 6 kids. My parents have, at this point, 22 grandchildren & 9 great-grandchil dren & we are all educated or in the process of getting our education. & in the way that educated people have, we are always getting more education.

My point is that LOTS of educated people have LOTS of children. & where I live, in the hood, I see lots of the "masses" with only one or two children. Maybe because that's all they can afford. Children are expensive! So get off your racist, elitist, ignorant rant already.
+3 # bmiluski 2015-12-12 17:17
Unfortunately, is these blow dried blowhards that decide policies that threaten our existence. Be it nuclear or climate.
+79 # caffreyc 2015-12-11 18:44
I'm much less concerned about Trump himself than I am about the number of people who seem to feel that his undemocratic and unconstitutiona l suggestions are good things. It terrifies me to think of how many people don't understand our history or our constitution or our civil rights laws, or who seem to think it doesn't matter if they are tromped (Trumped?) on.
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2015-12-14 02:27
Quoting caffreyc:
I'm much less concerned about Trump himself than I am about the number of people who seem to feel that his undemocratic and unconstitutional suggestions are good things. It terrifies me to think of how many people don't understand our history or our constitution or our civil rights laws, or who seem to think it doesn't matter if they are tromped (Trumped?) on.

So we have a sitting president who is a constitutional law scholar and yet he and his administration claim the right to execute American citizens by drone if they decide on their own that they want to. We are so far down the rabbit hole with violations of the constitution I barely know where to start. We need someone independent of the oligarchy and corporations,
+43 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-12-11 19:02
Time for the Supreme Court to step in and "select" Trump to be sure Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W.Bush, Obama policies as President are continued until they work.
"our" government has served the interests of people with money since day one. A few people make money off of war so they can buy politicians who promote war.
"Greed is good" --- Ronald Reagan.
WAKE UP AMERICA. A huge military build up, more than "daily" mass shootings = a sign of a declining empire
+16 # MidwestTom 2015-12-11 20:03
In the book Tragedy and Hope by Quigley, he builds the case that America must always be at war, and it must eventually fall into chaos in order for the American people to accept the New World Order. Think of the Austrians who welcomed Hitler, because he brought order to chaos.
+7 # backwards_cinderella 2015-12-12 05:05
He brought more chaos. Please.
+3 # bmiluski 2015-12-12 17:20
They welcomed Hitler because it looked like the easier way out of the mess they were in. Also, here was someone who did their thinking for them.
+23 # Shades of gray matter 2015-12-11 19:35
Trump MAY not be a Mussolini or Hitler rerun, but The Donald's supporters are emerging fascist street thugs, and they won't go away even if d'eir Furor loses. Trump and/or others may call on them to seek their agenda by other means. Then we'll really see what BAMN means. Trump now has more heirs than hairs; be prepared. Watch NRA for clues.
+26 # dotlady 2015-12-11 20:19
On a brighter note than to dwell on the bloated ego of Trump, there are actually negotiations taking place now about Syria with all the interested parties, who are seemingly coming to an agreement about how to deal with ISIS. It will probably not need the U.S. warhawks to send boots where they're not wanted. Fingers crossed.
+23 # Farafalla 2015-12-11 20:20
I don't think the fact that Hillary supports a no fly zone in Syria makes it a good idea.
+27 # reiverpacific 2015-12-11 20:57
From a "furriner's" point of view, the daily Trumpet (sounds like a tabloid scandal sheet) is getting EXACTLY what he's touting, tattling and jousting for, craves like an insatiable alcoholic being fed booze constantly -including from RSN-; a surfeit of attention from all sources.
Whatever he says currently, it's the headline du jour and that's just what he's after!
I'm really fed up to the eyeballs with seeing his swollen, self-adoring fizog on every news outlet I turn to.
Can't we show a bit of class and ignore him; that's really the opposite of what he's after?
There are any number of other more urgent and pressing issues simmering away below the mass media radar.
Hell, I've yet to see a mention of the departure of Santee Lakota poet, activist, musician and AIM founder John Trudell, just for one, who had more significance, courage and prescience in his little finger than the subject owlish piss-artist, and whose words will live for many decades or longer as a beacon of courage to his downtrodden people. In Donald ba-heid's case, it's "Hair" today -gone tomorrow!
And that's just one example.
Have you any idea what's happening at Fukushima currently? You'd better catch up -it certainly is sneaking up on we of Pacifica and getting worse weekly.
If you want infotainment that's your business but that's not what I subscribe to RSN for; and I like a laff more than most.
Boy, I needed that!
+11 # boredlion 2015-12-11 21:35
Nicely put, Reiver. John Trudell was a great poet and activist, and will be sorely missed. May Wakantanka embrace him and welcome him to the Spirit land.
+1 # reiverpacific 2015-12-12 10:22
Quoting boredlion:
Nicely put, Reiver. John Trudell was a great poet and activist, and will be sorely missed. May Wakantanka embrace him and welcome him to the Spirit land.

+4 # StuBones1960 2015-12-11 21:52
You're a furrier?
+4 # reiverpacific 2015-12-11 23:09
Quoting StuBones1960:
You're a furrier?

Sorry; my damn spellcheck has a mind of it's own at times -I have to check my spellcheck.
Gawd save us from "smart" technology.
It's pain in the digits when you like to muck about wi' words and phrases like I do.
+17 # Femihumanist 2015-12-11 21:07
People in the Peace Movement like to say (I think it's Gandhi but I'm not sure), "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, Then they fight you, then you win." What scares me is that it isn't just applicable to Progressives; it could also work for Trump. That man scares the hell out of me.
+12 # Shades of gray matter 2015-12-11 23:53
Trump is a megalomaniac, but he is not the one stockpiling assault weapons and worse, many of which have "disappeared" from U.S. domestic military bases. Trumpettes didn't organize the emerging Amerikan fascist movement. He mainly just jumped in front of the overt parade. The covert organization is what threatens US. Trump has become WAY MORE than a blowhard. He has sounded the trumpet for an extreme right wing Insurrection. He is legitimizing, with his popularity, a reactionary fascist explosion. Begin to prepare.
+4 # TwainPatriot 2015-12-12 00:17
A written case has been made, I believe elsewhere in these pages, that Trump, by saying aloud what most of the other elitist and hawkish candidates never would say, offers a choice to the Republican audiences they don't usually get. I, personally, don't believe he is as megalomaniacal or bigoted as he sounds. I think he says what is unsaid by his competitors, perhaps wanted by the crowds and is bound to create the controversy he plays to stir up. I think those who disapprove of him make a big mistake, comparing him to Sen Joe McCarthy, Hitler, etc WHO HELD ELECTED OFFICE. At this point, he is just a savvy candidate who outshines his rivals for brashness and SOME honesty. The most effective counter to his presentations would be factual programs detailing the constitutional violations that proposals like his (and similar one) would require, the contending principles ignored by other proposals and so forth. PBS Newshour mentioned how Edward R Murrow stood up to Sen. McCarthy, apparently losing track of the fact that McCarthy was, at least an elected US Senator; whereas Trump is, yet, just a self-financed candidate.
+7 # backwards_cinderella 2015-12-12 05:08
Well Hitler didn't start the fascist movement in Germany, either. He just grabbed ahold & made it into something that Germans could get behind. We have had fascists in the US for a long time, a particularly vile form. Trump is using them for his own gain & this is not going to end well for anyone.
+4 # Anarchist 23 2015-12-13 11:14
Or maybe our Fascists from the Way Back...the rich families who tried to overthrow Roosevelt in 1934...have just been burrowing within, all this time, deeper and deeper..since the Kennedy Assassination they have been coming out, moving policy with actions of death and 'terrorist' events till they have got us where they want us...poor, terrified and armed to the teeth. Let the Games begin!
+1 # MsAnnaNOLA 2015-12-14 02:35
Quoting backwards_cinderella:
Well Hitler didn't start the fascist movement in Germany, either. He just grabbed ahold & made it into something that Germans could get behind. We have had fascists in the US for a long time, a particularly vile form. Trump is using them for his own gain & this is not going to end well for anyone.

I think that you are assuming Trump is Fascist and no one else is. We have gotten to a point in this country where we can't get legislation done that 75 percent of people agree on because these things threaten corporate profits. The marrying of state and corporate power is Fascism. You don't have to say impolite and non politically correct things to be Fascist. Letting all your policies benefit corporate power to a large extent at the cost of the people is Fascist.
+11 # dotlady 2015-12-12 00:04
Agree with Reiverpacific - we should hear more about John Trudell, what he went through and his inspirational words and music to deepen understanding of humans' relationship with the earth.
And the creeping tide from Fukushima, the "hot" ocean and desperate creatures.
We need less about ignorant candidates, and more about ideas that will give us the will to take action on climate if we want a future.
+5 # janie1893 2015-12-12 00:20
+9 # TwainPatriot 2015-12-12 00:31
Perhaps we RSN readers are already too selective in our reading among the articles offered right here. After my comment above, I went on to read Matt Taibbi's 10 Dec Rolling Stone article, which brings in the news media's complicity in giving The Donald too easy a pass in his earlier days in this campaign PLUS their conflicts of interest where Trump's boost to their ratings can mean increased advertising revenue. Think about it.
+6 # backwards_cinderella 2015-12-12 05:09
That's a really good article. I particularly liked how he made the connection between Trump's TV watching & inability to focus on one issue or even complete a sentence.
+3 # treerapper 2015-12-12 05:31
It's certainly not surprising that anyone attending a Trump "RALLY" would cheer him. If someone is willing to go to a Trump rally, let alone even give him the time of day, you know those people are wanting in many areas.

There will always be Trumps - no matter the country, no matter the issue. Does anyone really believe he could be elected President? I realize he has followers but those goose-stepping miscreants are a usual part of the US palette. That doesn't mean that an extreme political persuasion can elect a President.

Personally, I think everyone should just let him be the pointless piece of garbage that he is and has always been. Let him spew his maniacal drivel - it does wonders for the standing of the GOP.
+2 # LandLady 2015-12-12 08:43
I don't watch TV, but..I think at least part of Trump's popularity is his emotional real-ness, even if his rants are often close to insane. Because I too can't stand the typical candidate, not only with perfect hair and make-up, but with comments that sound rehearsed and scripted by "political consultants" to sound wise, balanced, etc. but so often come off as simply canned. Whereas Trump clearly feels what he's saying at the moment, so he stands out as at least sincere. And Americans have seen so many politicians switch positions on issues in order to win votes (e.g. gay marriage) or outright lie (e.g. Hillary re: tapes) that they feel safer with someone who dares to be "sincere" even if politically incorrect. They hate the big money, educated elites that buy the consultants, but even though Trump also has the big money, they like him because he acts different from the polite, educated, cautious political class. He is not afraid to offend his listeners. To me that is why he is scary.
+3 # Shades of gray matter 2015-12-12 09:35
Only a maniac would stir up the dangerous emotions that Hair Trump has been exploiting for several years. But his armed and dangerous cohorts scare me more. The Donald's popularity is their trump card; their claim to political legitimacy. The reactionary part of this movement may burn hot, flame out. But like selfies and texting drivers, the appeal of fascism is part of our nature, and always with US.
+7 # RMDC 2015-12-12 09:49
In reality some of the rethuglicans are worse than Trump. He is just an egomaniac on a vanity tour He loves to watch himself on TV. He is a blowhard and his own mouth will put an end to him.

But there are real psychopaths like Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruze in the race and they are far more dangerous than Trump. both would carpet bomb Syria. Both are war hawks of the worst order. There is not end to the millions of people that these psychos would kill just because they want to give the orders for the "final solution." Their language about ISIS reeks of a final solution.

I suspect that Graham and Cruise are just CIA operatives. They are there to push the discourse to the hard right. Trump pushes it into lunacy, satire, and reality TV. Jeb Bush will be the final nominee. He will inherit a chaotic republican party so he can rule without any compromise with the discredited losers. Bush will complete the Bush Family empire and take the nation into full fascism (not that it isn't already). Bush is the most dangerous of them all. He has the most money by far and is just laying back until all the bit players exhaust themselves.

Hillary is about as bad as Bush, but the Bush and Clinton families are very close -- and close to the Saudi royal family. This is the future of the US. God help us all.
+1 # chapdrum 2015-12-13 12:28
My guess is that even if Trump wins the nomination AND the election, he will not take office.

He is not interested in nuts and bolts governance and diplomacy, (just like the rest of his seditious party). He's just having a good ol' time doing and saying whatever he pleases.
0 # Murray Suid 2015-12-13 13:03
The Republicans are going to run someone. It's possible that Mr. Trump is the best of the lot except maybe for Mr. Paul. I say this because my greatest fear is ending up with a religious extremist in the White House, someone who feels the Bible supersedes the Constitution.

To put it another way, if the Republican primary voters do stop Mr. Trump, is there any other Republican candidate who would be acceptable to progressives?
+4 # kyzipster 2015-12-13 20:01
"Only One Thing Can Stop Donald Trump"

I think that would be winning the GOP nomination.

Am I the only one who thinks that Trump's popularity with the Republican base is good for the country over the long-term? We all know how bigoted and hateful they are, how ignorant of the important issues facing the country. When we point it out, we're dismissed as liberally biased. Their support of Trump is undeniable proof. Registered Republicans are only 20-something percent of the electorate and Trump's popularity is contained within this base. Independents decide elections and Trump winning the nomination will bring the GOP down yet another notch. Voters rejected Sarah Palin, I have faith that Trump will be soundly rejected if on the ballot. This rightwing cult needs to be destroyed once and for all, Trump is the man to help it along. Bush did his part, McCain/Palin did theirs. Trump is making the Bush years seem like moderation, they were horrible and we'll be paying the consequences for many more years.
+4 # newell 2015-12-14 08:38
why do democrats want to STOP trump? that would be stupid. we want him to be the nominee. either sanders or clinton would fly in with the senate and house. the democrat turnout against trump would be "huge". a trump nomination is the republican party's worst nightmare--but our best dream.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.