Lion of the Blogosphere

Super Tuesday predictions

(1) Trump will win every state except Texas.

(2) Trump will perform better than expected based on what people think the state polls say (except perhaps in Texas where Cruz surely has a ground game advantage given that it’s his home state). Perhaps a lot better. Remember that Trump outperformed the polls in New Hampshire (a primary state) and Nevada (a caucus state).

The reasons why Trump didn’t especially outperform polls in South Carolina is that he had a bad week going into South Carolina.

Trump has had a very good week going into Super Tuesday. He won a big win in Nevada. He did fine in the debate; he was the way Trump normally is but there were no shocking attacks on Republican orthodoxy and no booing of him like in the debate before South Carolina. Trump received a huge endorsement from Christ Christie and a significant endorsement from Jeff Sessions (Cruz supporters know who he is, as do all of the voters in Alabama). These endorsements boost Trump’s social proof.

Trump has momentum. The most recent polls released today show a huge surge for Trump. 49% in a national poll, 51% in Massachusets, 42% in Alabama, these are the best numbers that Trump has polled ever and they are coming in right before the big day.

(3) The mainstream media (MSM) spin will be that Trump had a huge victory and is unstoppable. Some people may think it’s surprising that the MSM will spin things in Trump’s favor, because everyone knows they hate Trump.

The media’s spin is based on expectations, and not only will Trump beat the expectations of polls of the last two weeks, but Trump will totally demolish what were the long-term expectations of the MSM. For months and months, the MSM did not believe that polls showing Trump in the lead would translate into real votes in real elections. They always believed that Trump would magically disappear and a “serious” candidate would show up on Super Tuesday to supplant Trump, if it didn’t happen before then.

Cruz’s win in Texas will be discounted as Cruz only being able to win his home state. Which is the correct analysis.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 29, 2016 at 8:02 pm

Posted in Politics

47 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It really feels like we are on the precipice of something unprecedented in modern times. Living history. Sublime.

    Also, I recommend r/The_Donald on reddit for those who haven’t visited. It is a revelation.

    Sagi Is My Guru

    February 29, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    • For the last 30-40 years, it has been the assumptions of elites of both parties that the will of voters didn’t matter at all — they could choose the nominee and force their voters to accept him or her, no matter how odious. Republican voters demonstrated that this isn’t the case with the Republican nominee when they refused to support Jeb Bush. Democratic voters illustrated why the elites of both parties are such enthusiastic supporters of nonwhite immigration — the party of nonwhites is doing their masters bidding and falling in line behind the egregious Hilary Clinton.


      February 29, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    • I.e. Trump is doing what Goldwater would have done if he knew how to connect with people.

      howitzer daniel

      February 29, 2016 at 9:16 pm

      • True, Goldwater was no great communicator. But I see no analogy at all between Goldwater and Trump – two different eras, two very different kinds of people appealing to a different base. Goldwater was a man born too early. Trump was born at just the right time. All conservatives and/or Republicans who ran for president in 1968 and later benefitted to some extent from “the social issue,” something that barely existed in 1964 and earlier. Goldwater’s heavy loss in 64 was probably due partly to the Kennedy assassination (according to William Rusher it made voters reluctant to change presidents so soon again.) But also, there was just less interest in economic conservatism in that era. Goldwater was up against the New Deal coalition. In that era any Republican started out with at least a small disadvantage.


        February 29, 2016 at 10:30 pm

      • There’s essentially no popular support for free market economic policy. Politicians supporting free market policies who win tend to win due to their other positions or their general style. Trump uses essentially NO free market rhetoric and he’s the most popular Republican figure since Reagan (who was very much a free market type, but was more popular for his style, personality and one-liners).


        February 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm

      • Goldwater was a terrific communicator, what he said was simply incomprehensible to most Americans of the time. As someone who grew up partly in Arizona, I understood his appeal and also why no one else could. In person he was a leonine, terrifically handsome man, sexy as hell (yes) but the media hated him and in those days, they had a total monolithic monopoly. Also, Humpty Dumpty hadn’t fallen then, so Americans didn’t take things as seriously as they do now.

        The prospect of hanging, etc.


        March 1, 2016 at 7:50 am

      • The free market is a figment of libertard’s imaginations. It doesn’t exist.


        March 1, 2016 at 8:17 am

    • Thanks for the Reddit tip. It is a hoot. The Trumpets there have their own vocabulary. Things that are approved of are “high energy,” Marco Rubio is “Narco Lubio” and of course, they spell foam boy as “foam boi.”


      March 1, 2016 at 12:32 pm

  2. Ever since the mainstream media linked Trump to the KKK, Bed Bath and Beyond stock has really popped.

    Mark Caplan

    February 29, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    • And what will happen to Home Depot when Trump kicks out all the Mexican illegals?


      February 29, 2016 at 11:07 pm

  3. I think Trump will win Texas. Hispanics will vote for him like they did in Nevada. If they’re not loyal to Cruz because he’s Hispanic, they sure as hell aren’t going to be loyal to him simply because he’s from the same state.

    Bilbo Baggins

    February 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    • Hope so. Traditionally, Latino men have supported “The Man”, and Trump is The Man of the moment.


      February 29, 2016 at 11:06 pm

  4. Trump looks set to win the nomination. One last problem is if the establishment runs a third party to try to throw the election to Hillary. However given how much the base hates the establishment it’s possible a third party would take as many votes from Hillary’s moderate, white professional base. By labeling a third party as a liberal party, Trump could turn the third party into a net-positive if more disaffected Bernie voters vote for it than Republicans.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 29, 2016 at 10:54 pm

    • I still think GOPe will legally steal the nomination from him and give it to someone like Romney.


      February 29, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    • It seems there should really be five parties — far left Bernities, moderate left Hillary/Bloombergites, TrueCon, moderate con, and whatever Trump is.


      February 29, 2016 at 11:08 pm

      • See, that’s the problem. There is not even a name for Trump’s philosophy. And this is no small point. What if Trump were to die suddenly? No, I don’t mean an assassination or foul play. But if he fell ill and passed away does it mean that what he stood for would die with him? If it really is a winning philosophy and has enough adherents to change the culture it should be given a name. The reason it hasn’t been named yet is precisely because it isn’t anything intellectually coherent. It is based on whatever Trump feels strongly about at this point in time.


        February 29, 2016 at 11:26 pm

      • America is really ripe for a party that is left wing on economics, nationalist on immigration/trade and moderate on social/cultural issues. Such a party would dominate elections but that set of views is extremely under-represented among the elites who make up politicians.


        February 29, 2016 at 11:52 pm

      • Immigration is only part of the problem. A party that is tough about immigration but moderate on social/cultural issues would still greatly harm our civilization. Feminism and trivialization of marriage are the cause of much of the despair that permeates everything. Because of these things, people’s sense of purpose and meaning in life is dwindling. I think some people like the ring of this “but moderate on social issues” idea because it makes them feel less divorced from the attitudes of their friends, but it is no good.

        Besides, blacks (although their numbers aren’t growing) are a bigger problem in daily life than Hispanic immigrants. Hispanic neighborhoods tend to be liveable, just unpleasant and alienating. Black neighborhoods are not livable, and blacks make public transit a miserable experience. And blacks constantly complain, and believe their status as an underclass is the result of injustice. Muslims will probably be the biggest problem in the long run though. Hispanics want to come to America to be an underclass while Muslims think they will eventually be in charge.


        March 1, 2016 at 2:01 am

      • It’s worth running up the flagpole to see who salutes, but it’s not obvious to me who makes up the coalition of voters that gets it elected.


        March 1, 2016 at 2:31 am

      • “There is not even a name for Trump’s philosophy. And this is no small point.”

        Yes there is, he’s an economic nationalist. Limiting immigration and trade to protect American jobs used to be the default position of unions for decades, and was probably considered common sense for most of the 20th Century (at least until the 60’s). I think the fact that we don’t currently have a label for what used to be fairly common political positions speaks to how well donor money has prevented this possibility from even showing itself over the past few decades. Only someone who was totally independent of donor money could even raise these issues.

        Mike Street Station

        March 1, 2016 at 6:55 am

      • MaryK: Trumpism is middle of the road on economics + middle of the road on social issues + anti trade + anti immigration.

        Thats it. It’s been around since before Trump but Trump just brought it to the mainstream.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 1, 2016 at 7:47 am

      • Not even a name for Trump’s philosophy…..that gave me a nice morning laugh. It’s called “nationalism.” Not one thing Trump says about trade and immigration would be considered out of line in a sane country, like Israel. Defend your borders? Get the best deal you can for YOUR country in trade deals? Extend basic health benefits to your citizens? Social Security in their old age?

        This stuff is not even discussed in sane countries. Only in America, with its retrograde religious maniacs on the right, and their masochistic leftard counterparts, are these things controversial.


        March 1, 2016 at 7:53 am

      • Ideally a new political movement would oppose open borders, deport millions of illegals, rework/scrap the disastrous trade deals, and promote western civilization (not multiculturalism). In addition, it would seek to popularize and mainstream HBD. Last but not least, it would wage an unrelenting war against the cancer of feminism, one of the most vile, brain-dead movements in modern history.

        Lewis Medlock

        March 1, 2016 at 11:47 am

    • Bloomberg takes more votes from Hillary than from Trump. At least according to an analysis I saw on TV in January.

      We need more political parties btw: Socialist, Technocratic Management (Clintons, Gore, Bloomberg, Ryan), Neocon (the Clintons could be here), Nationalist Capitalist (Trump, Sessions, Brat)


      March 1, 2016 at 12:09 pm

  5. I’m interested to see if he cracks 50% anywhere. He needs to crack 50% to prove he is actually electable on his own right, and is not merely benefitting from a split opposition.

    In that sense it will also be interesting to see if Rubio or Cruz does terribly anywhere, like teens terrible. If one of them underperform in a critical state that will damage their general election prospects.

    Lion what is your opinion on the off-the-record conversation Trump had with the NYT editorial board in which he is alleged to have said his immigration views will be dialed down come the general election? Do you think he should agree to release the tape?


    February 29, 2016 at 11:07 pm

  6. This is really the final chance for Cruzio to show that they have any credibility as candidates, so they’re throwing the Hail Mary in the form of vicious, hysterical attacks. Cruz may eke out a win in Texas, but it will matter as much as the single touchdown in a 38-7 defeat. It will be enough for him to justify staying in the race, however.

    Rubio will come away with nothing but will stay on for his home state on 3/15. Same with Kasich and Ohio.

    It’ll be over on 3/15.

    Ripple Earthdevil

    February 29, 2016 at 11:07 pm

  7. Poor Bernie, such a great guy for Vermont. He’s labored endlessly for the progressive cause, whose spoiled new adherents now repay him with nothing but scorn. And he gets to spend his thankless fading years smooching black backsides and giving up ground like the Egyptian Army on every issue he’s ever stood for… better him than me.


    February 29, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    • Bernie is a socialist scumbag. I would vote for Cruz/Rubio over Bernie.


      March 1, 2016 at 4:51 am


    Apparently, Newsmax says that the NYT’s has a recording/transcript of Trump basically lying about his immigration stance.


    February 29, 2016 at 11:29 pm

  9. There has been a lot of debate on what to call the Trump movement. Trump is an America First Republican in the style of 1930’s GOP nationalism. Repubs of that era were in favor of trade protections and staying out of foreign wars. They were very much opposed to the messianic foreign policy of Wilson which in many ways is very similar to that of today’s neoconservatives. They also opposed FDR’s new deal which they accurately foresaw as a federal power grab that would ultimately work against their own interests. What I see as Trump’s greatest appeal to the electorate is that he is shunning the tired libertarian call for “limited government”. He knows that it is futile to fight this beast and instead offers to lead a government that works for, instead of against, the interests of those he represents.


    March 1, 2016 at 6:59 am

    • “Trump is an America First Republican in the style of 1930’s GOP nationalism.”

      Indeed, there were a few other Presidents over the years that took on the globalist finance elites and worked in the interests of Americans. Three of them were Garfield, McKinley and JF Kennedy. They have something else in common as well, which many in our history benighted culture probably don’t know. But I fear Mr. Trump may meet the same fate. Not yet, but if he’s elected and actually does what he says he’ll do.


      March 1, 2016 at 9:06 am

    • Trump is much more like FDR, and his support is similar to FDR’s New Deal coalition. Trump is actually nothing like the anti-New Dealer GOP – who were mostly Midwestern and New England WASPs – in culture or politics.


      March 1, 2016 at 1:14 pm

  10. Hey Lion,

    The NY Times is running some devastating stuff on Hillary, Obama & Libya. What gives? Do you think they are running with this stuff so that it can be aired & decontaminated before the general, and thus will lose effectiveness? Or are they actually being a newspaper and writing the truth?

    Remember the late Larry Auster? He maintained a bit of respect for the Times and thought that once in a while, they got it together and acted like a great newspaper. Maybe this is one of those times.


    March 1, 2016 at 8:19 am

  11. Lion: what do you think of this excellent article by Yglesias about Trump and Trumpism:

    Yglesias is one of the few liberals who understand us.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 1, 2016 at 8:56 am

    • Pretty good article.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 1, 2016 at 9:26 am

      • It’s OK, not great. He gets a few things. Maybe that mugger knocked some sense into his thick libtard skull. Anyway, I hate nationalists/conservatives who beg for liberal approval. Who cares what they think? Liberals are not to be appealed to; they are to be crushed.

        He’s wrong about moral degeneracy and decay being part of the mainstream. The LGBT agenda will always be deviant.

        Speak for yourself, pajama boy.


        March 1, 2016 at 1:15 pm

      • “Anyway, I hate nationalists/conservatives who beg for liberal approval. Who cares what they think? Liberals are not to be appealed to; they are to be crushed.”

        I don’t think it’s a matter of liberal approval seeking (that would be a cuck move), I think it’s a matter of Vox, in spite of being the liberal equivalent of a kid’s newspaper has gotten a couple of things right about Trump in a way that Conservatism Inc is still befuddled by to this day.

        Mike Street Station

        March 1, 2016 at 2:50 pm

  12. New Kasich rally. New level of joy. LOL


    March 1, 2016 at 9:28 am

    • Looks like an open-casket rally.


      March 2, 2016 at 11:54 am

  13. An interesting take from a commenter on another site about what today could mean for the Republican Party:

    Tomorrow isn’t the day the Republican party dies.

    Tomorrow is the day the Republican party is reborn, and remembers it is the incarnation of American nationalism, the heirs of the greatest Federalists, Whigs and old-time Republicans:

    The heirs of Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Washington, John Adams, Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    The Party that reads Federalist #2, and thus understands the purpose of the constitution – defending the interests of the American *nation*, which existed before the republic did (as Crevecoeur, for instance, correctly observed).

    The party that reads Franklin’s Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, and thus understands the importance of an America First immigration policy.

    The party that reads Washington’s Farewell Address, and thus understands how to implement an America First foreign policy.

    The party that thwarted the Anglophile imperialism of Hamilton in 1798, the slave-power imperialism of the fire-eaters in the 1850s, and the moralistic imperialism of Wilson in 1920.

    The party that ended the Korean war, and refused to support Israeli aggression in 1956.

    The party that has never been afraid to restrict immigration.

    The party that suppressed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The party that enacted the Alien Act of 1798, the Chinese exclusion act of 1882, and the quota based immigration system of 1924. The party that carried out Operation Wetback in 1954.

    The pragmatic party, free of economic dogmatism, which systematically built the greatest industrial base the world has ever known.

    The party of Americans who are *not* ashamed of their ancestors.

    The party of Americans determined to create a dignified future for their descendants.

    Andrew E.

    March 1, 2016 at 9:36 am

    • Too bad an anti-Semitic commenter, throwing in an unnecessary comment about “Israeli Aggression.” When the U.S. went against our ally the U.K. and helped the communist enemy Soviet Union.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 1, 2016 at 9:48 am

    • There was no Israeli aggression. Israel had fought to open the Straights of Agaba to its navigation and that goal was achieved. Egypt had violated the international law by closing the straights and her action constituted a causus belie. It was an Egyptian act of aggression, not Israel’s that led to the war.


      March 1, 2016 at 11:02 am

  14. Wow, Yglesias wrote that? It’s relatively free from liberal screech.


    March 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: