Trump

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

He is easily getting more voters to the booth than Romney and McCain ever sniffed.

More primary voters, yes, that is true. It is also true that he will set the record for most votes against the eventual nominee.

If you extrapolate the 75% reporting in Oregon to 100%, you get the following:

2012 Romney - 204k
2016 Trump - 285k

2012 Anti-Romney - 84k
2016 Anti-Trump - 156k

Once again, studies have shown primary turnout doesn't correlate well with general turnout. Extremely polarizing candidates (both Trump and Cruz) pulled more November voters to the polls this spring. That is far different from the creation of new November voters. The vast majority of primary voters this spring are regular voters in past Novembers.

However, even if you want to look at primary turnout and draw conclusions, you have to admit that the anti-Romney vote nearly doubling (84k to 156k) as an anti-Trump vote takes away pretty much any optimism that Trump's 40% increase over Romney's total might initially imply.

Romney ultimately got 93% of the vote from registered republicans in Nov 2012. Trump is going to fail spectacularly in comparison to Romney at getting Republican votes in November. He can put a "Republican primary vote record setter" award in his trophy case at home, but that won't help him reach the White House.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

2012 primary votes for someone other than Romney - 8.9 million
2016 primary votes for someone other than Trump - 15.6 million (and counting)

Trump will have the least support in November from his own party of any nominee in a generation.

[MoValley John]

2012 primary votes for someone other than Romney - 8.9 million
2016 primary votes for someone other than Trump - 15.6 million (and counting)

Trump will have the least support in November from his own party of any nominee in a generation.

And how will that differ from Hillary and the Democrats?

[Kung Wu]

More primary voters, yes, that is true. It is also true that he will set the record for most votes against the eventual nominee.

Because two idiots that were mathematically completely ruled out stayed in. Has that ever happened before? Was that really a responsible way to waste their donor's money? Especially Kasich. If I was Cruz I would be PISSED about Kasich. If you look back at it, it was Kasich that effed up Cruz' chances of winning.

2012 Romney - 204k
2016 Trump - 285k

With 93% reporting it's 240k pro-trump. 36k more than Romney got.

2012 Anti-Romney - 84k
2016 Anti-Trump - 156k

The anti-trumps have 112k. A stunning 28k more votes than the year prior. There is practically zero more fragmentation in Oregon than there was when Romney was running.

Once again, studies have shown primary turnout doesn't correlate well with general turnout. Extremely polarizing candidates (both Trump and Cruz) pulled more November voters to the polls this spring. That is far different from the creation of new November voters. The vast majority of primary voters this spring are regular voters in past Novembers.

Sure, but that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about your assertion that Trump won't get to 40%.

Romney ultimately got 93% of the vote from registered republicans in Nov 2012.

Because his competition responsibly pulled out early, when all hope was lost.

Trump is going to fail spectacularly in comparison to Romney at getting Republican votes in November.

Are you really telling me that Trump is going to get less popular votes than Romney did? Did I hear that correctly?

[Kung Wu]

2012 primary votes for someone other than Romney - 8.9 million
2016 primary votes for someone other than Trump - 15.6 million (and counting)

Trump will have the least support in November from his own party of any nominee in a generation.

Blah blah blah. (Again, because the losers stayed in WAAAAAY longer than they did against Romney -- that's the only reason ... oh but hey, primary votes aren't indicative of how the general election will turn out)

Now let's use your data and talk about West Virginia.

2012 Romney - 77k
2016 Trump - 156k

2012 Anti-Romney - 34k
2016 Anti-Trump - 41k

Looks like the Anti-trump crowd got a whopping 7k more votes! Woooooh, really fragmented base there! Yikes! How will the GOP EVER survive? Oh but what how many more votes did Trump get over Romney? 79k!? You mean he more than DOUBLED Romney's total?

[Kung Wu]

A couple of you won't ever vote for Trump. Got it.

For the rest of you, what Veep candidate would move you over from "probably won't" vote for Trump to "I'll entertain it"?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

And how will that differ from Hillary and the Democrats?

I've said all along that the only inkling of hope Trump has is that Hillary is flawed too and won't have strong base support from the left. My argument with @Kung Wu: has consistently been that Trump's record setting votes in republican primaries is not an indication that he will do well with Republicans in November.

If Trump wins the Presidency, it will be in spite of poor Republican support, not because of it.

[tropicalshox]

A couple of you won't ever vote for Trump. Got it.

For the rest of you, what Veep candidate would move you over from "probably won't" vote for Trump to "I'll entertain it"?

I'm undecided if it's between Clinton and Trump, leaning to Jill Stein but am giving Trump consideration. Waiting to see where I think he really stands on certain things. There probably isn't a Repulican VP pick that will lean me more to Trump. Rand Paul or Senator Collins from Maine would be least damaging.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Romney ultimately got 93% of the vote from registered republicans in Nov 2012.

Because his competition responsibly pulled out early, when all hope was lost.

I think you misread my post. I said November. I was speaking of the general election in that statement, not the primary.

Or are you somehow trying to correlate the two and I am just missing your point?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Romney ultimately got 93% of the vote from registered republicans in Nov 2012. Trump is going to fail spectacularly in comparison to Romney at getting Republican votes in November. He can put a "Republican primary vote record setter" award in his trophy case at home, but that won't help him reach the White House.

Are you really telling me that Trump is going to get less popular votes than Romney did? Did I hear that correctly?

I said fewer REPUBLICAN votes than Romney. I keep saying Trump's one chance to win is if Hillary implodes and he pulls a bunch of independents and even some dems his way. Even if that happens, and I don't expect it will, I don't see any way that he wins more REPUBLICAN votes than Romney did. Interpreting how record setting Republican primary votes will translate into Republican general votes has been the core of our conversation, correct?

41 million R's voted in 2012. Romney received 38 million (93%).

Trump won't receive 38 million votes from R's this November.
Trump won't receive 93% of the total R vote this November.

Go ahead and save this post and we can revisit November 9th.

[Play Angry]

Rand Paul or Senator Collins from Maine would be least damaging.

Those are two very different types of Republican. Just curious, what draws you to each?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sure, but that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about your assertion that Trump won't get to 40%

You are being extremely dishonest @Kung Wu.

Trump will indeed rise from 39.7% of the total, but there is no way he catches McCain, and he will be even further behind Romney. My point still stands. Trump will have a smaller percentage of support than either of the last 2 losing nominees, while simultaneously having the largest percentage of registered republicans who will refuse to vote for him as the nominee that the party has seen in my lifetime. He is going to do horribly with registered Republicans in the general election. He's in trouble.

Yes, I originally posted 39.7% because that was the current data point. When you disputed its usefulness since voting wasn't yet complete, I agreed with you that Trump will surpass 40%. I went on to clarify my actual point so there would be no doubt what I was trying to say. My point was never about +/-40%. It has always been about Trump finishing with a lower percentage than both Romney and McCain did.

I'm happy to discuss any disagreement about whether Trump will surpass McCain/Romney, but enough with the strawmen @Kung Wu. You are better than that.

[wu_shizzle]

A couple of you won't ever vote for Trump. Got it.

For the rest of you, what Veep candidate would move you over from "probably won't" vote for Trump to "I'll entertain it"?

The people I like would most likely be a terrible fit, because most of them are publicly #NeverTrump.

I would entertain someone like Condie Rice in that she might be able to moderate some of Trump's tone and inexperience, and is someone highly respected by both parties and the media.

[tropicalshox]

Those are two very different types of Republican. Just curious, what draws you to each?

Paul on foreign policy, Collins just trying to pick somebody who isn't conservative on every issue. I should of probably left her off.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

With 93% reporting it's 240k pro-trump. 36k more than Romney got.

The anti-trumps have 112k. A stunning 28k more votes than the year prior. There is practically zero more fragmentation in Oregon than there was when Romney was running.

@Kung Wu:, you once again have wrong information.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/oregon

93% reporting
Trump 241k
Other 121k

At this moment, that equates to:
Trump 18% increase over Romney
Anti-Trump 44% increase over anti-Romney

Put another way, Romney ran with Ron Paul still fighting him in Oregon. Paul received 13% of the vote (not insignificant by any means). Meanwhile, Trump ran unopposed in Oregon, and based on current tallies, will still finish more than 4% behind Romney's winning percentage. (70.8% vs 66.6%)