Klein's Fear

[BedellBrave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drWh6vBa45k


I get the sense that Klein is beginning to not only fear Trump will win the R nomination, but will win the presidency...

Fearmongering? Or...?

[57Brave]

(R) had four years to recruit / create a candidate.
And this is what they have to show ?

Kinda like when Boehner left the Speakership, they weren't prepared.
Just like when they took control of the House, they weren't prepared
Kinda like when they took the Senate, they weren't prepared

Do we have a pattern here.

You voted for these clowns into governance on the flimsy excuse of their morality
Here we are 4 years later, Roe v Wade is right where it was, cake bakers around the country have to bake the cakes and all you have to show is Trump

Told you 4 years ago you had no bench
...

Newton 3rd Law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

[sturg33]

(R) had four years to recruit / create a candidate.
And this is what they have to show ?

Kinda like when Boehner left the Speakership, they weren't prepared.
Just like when they took control of the House, they weren't prepared
Kinda like when they took the Senate, they weren't prepared

Do we have a pattern here.

You voted for these clowns into governance on the flimsy excuse of their morality
Here we are 4 years later, Roe v Wade is right where it was, cake bakers around the country have to bake the cakes and all you have to show is Trump

Told you 4 years ago you had no bench
...

Newton 3rd Law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

It's funny how we can exchange these dumb posts almost verbatim with your team and it was be just as pointless and baseless

[57Brave]

and you have Trump

/////////////////////////

The Rude Pundit ‏@rudepundit 1m1 minute ago

You guys are hilarious, thinking you can stop Trump with reason. Find an ex-mistress he forced to have an abortion. And that might work.
1 retweet 4 likes

[sturg33]

Trump isn't going to win the nomination... and if he does, then we'll get Bush's 5th term from Hilary

[57Brave]

your team

Team ?

[57Brave]

Trump isn't going to win the nomination... and if he does, then we'll get Bush's 5th term from Hilary

you are getting Hillary whether you like it or not. Funny thing is, Trump is your best hope
(R) has had 4 years to ...

instead voted 50 some times to repeal ACA or Benghazi or PP
everything but take care of business

[sturg33]

It's a good thing Hilary has a dictatorial ability to escape the law... she's doing quite well despite her fbi investigation. good for her

[sturg33]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drWh6vBa45k


I get the sense that Klein is beginning to not only fear Trump will win the R nomination, but will win the presidency...

Fearmongering? Or...?

Bedell, I'm no Trump fan... but I hate Rubio even more. This is a good article that sums up my thoughts pretty well

LINK: Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump)

[BedellBrave]

Trump isn't going to win the nomination... and if he does, then we'll get Bush's 5th term from Hilary


You'd think. But that's seeming more and more to just be the conventional, even wishful thinking. Ds on here seem about as confident of the Donald's demise as Rs a few months ago.

Klein seems to really be getting antsy.

But have no fear 57 has the answers. Always does. He's always right too. Just ask him.

[BedellBrave]

Bedell, I'm no Trump fan... but I hate Rubio even more. This is a good article that sums up my thoughts pretty well

LINK: Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump)


I actually think Rubio will be more status quo than anything. But I could be wrong. But if it makes money for Wall Street then figure on it happening with Rubio and with Clinton.

What happens if it's Trump just seems more unpredictable.

[57Brave]

It's a good thing Hilary has a dictatorial ability to escape the law... she's doing quite well despite her fbi investigation. good for her

I'm guessing you are in your mid to late twenties.

HRC has been under one investigation or another since you were either before you were born or in diapers.
All politically motivated and none of consequence.

This one I'd bet the farm comes to term much like the others

[sturg33]

I'm guessing you are in your mid to late twenties.

HRC has been under one investigation or another since you were either before you were born or in diapers.
All politically motivated and none of consequence.

This one I'd bet the farm comes to term much like the others

I'm certain you'll win your bet...

bc as history has shown us, she can get away with murder in this country

[Julio3000]

I've run the gamut on Trump for the last several months. I've been alternately puzzled, bemused, amused, distressed, etc. Like so many other people, I've waited for the "inevitable" bursting of the bubble, each time he's said or done something outrageous. Of course, it hasn't happened. I admitted a while ago that I went from thinking he had zero chance at the nomination, to thinking that he had a slim chance, to now figuring that it's approaching a coin flip. At this point, I'm not really afraid of his winning the election, but I'll concede that I've been wrong about him more than once to this point.

And while I said yesterday that I experienced no small amount of schadenfreude that Republicans appeared to be getting the candidate they deserved—for their fetishizing of wealth, for their anti-intellectualism, for their encouragement of nativism and everything else—today I've found that feeling dissolving into worry. Worry for what it means for our society, our politics, our identity. I'm still not particularly worried that he's going to become president, but I'm worried about what his ascent means for the future.

I tend to think that Trump's campaign has been smart and calculated rather than freewheeling, reactionary and ignorant, as it's been portrayed. I think he's a bully, and per the maxim about punching a bully in the nose, the way you curb this particular bully is by beating him. He was oddly deflated and detached-seeming after losing in Iowa. If this campaign is a massive ego-feed for him, his ego trip ends when he loses. It's just that the shower of mediocrities who've shared the stage with him haven't been able to pull it off yet. Lindsey Graham, after the first debate, said something to the effect of "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys." That says it all, to me. He's terrible, but what does it say about them that they can't seem to lay a glove on him?

I think the situation has come to a head because of the singular personality of Trump, but its roots are in the weakness of the Republican party. For years now it's been the captive of the Tea Party, where cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is pretty much the price of admission. They have no interest in governing and value purity over results, every time. That dynamic has continued to shrink the demographic appeal of the party, and I'm not really certain how that trend is going to be reversed.

There was a lot of comment from the national press about the appearance of Rubio on the stump in SC with Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. The picture that was painted was of youth and diversity, but the optics were just papering over the fact that the party's appeal has narrowed to a swath of folks who represent just the opposite. One thing I will say about Hillary is that, despite the jokes and memes about her courting the black vote in SC, or her attempts to run the table with female voters by any means necessary, she represents something more than window dressing. Her team and the various state apparati that support her are legitimately diverse across numerous fronts, and her appeal to women and minorities is probably more legitimately informed and earned than her detractors are willing to credit. The Trump phenomenon, for the moment, exists within the context of the party for whose nomination he's running. He's found a message that resonates with that crowd, and that's what's going to have to change.

[57Brave]

Does anyone know how,why or when Paul Ryan is not a candidate ?
Generally the last VP candidate even if the losing side has the front runner tag. Not this time.


Why ?

[weso1]

I actually think Rubio will be more status quo than anything. But I could be wrong. But if it makes money for Wall Street then figure on it happening with Rubio and with Clinton.

What happens if it's Trump just seems more unpredictable.

Bedell is close to being a Trump supporter. I feel it.

[57Brave]

Of course he is.

[BedellBrave]

What I find interesting (mildly) is that Ds lay the blame for Trump solely at the feet of Rs and never ever consider that their own push and agenda has something to do with it all...

Trump is winning because people hate you guys and want to punch you in the face. They see you as smug, self-righteous, and as a threat. You are Joy Behar. You are that leftie kid in school that was always so annoying.

[The Chosen One]

What I find interesting (mildly) is that Ds lay the blame for Trump solely at the feet of Rs and never ever consider that their own push and agenda has something to do with it all...

Trump is winning because people hate you guys and want to punch you in the face. They see you as smug, self-righteous, and as a threat. You are Joy Behar. You are that leftie kid in school that was always so annoying.

lol.

[BedellBrave]

;-)

[Runnin]

What I find interesting (mildly) is that Ds lay the blame for Trump solely at the feet of Rs and never ever consider that their own push and agenda has something to do with it all...

Trump is winning because people hate you guys and want to punch you in the face. They see you as smug, self-righteous, and as a threat. You are Joy Behar. You are that leftie kid in school that was always so annoying.
I guess some people grow up (evolve) and some stay in grade school forever.

"leftie kid in school"? Now that's a revealing phrase and first time I have ever seen it before. I seriously have no idea what it means.

[50PoundHead]

I've run the gamut on Trump for the last several months. I've been alternately puzzled, bemused, amused, distressed, etc. Like so many other people, I've waited for the "inevitable" bursting of the bubble, each time he's said or done something outrageous. Of course, it hasn't happened. I admitted a while ago that I went from thinking he had zero chance at the nomination, to thinking that he had a slim chance, to now figuring that it's approaching a coin flip. At this point, I'm not really afraid of his winning the election, but I'll concede that I've been wrong about him more than once to this point.

And while I said yesterday that I experienced no small amount of schadenfreude that Republicans appeared to be getting the candidate they deserved—for their fetishizing of wealth, for their anti-intellectualism, for their encouragement of nativism and everything else—today I've found that feeling dissolving into worry. Worry for what it means for our society, our politics, our identity. I'm still not particularly worried that he's going to become president, but I'm worried about what his ascent means for the future.

I tend to think that Trump's campaign has been smart and calculated rather than freewheeling, reactionary and ignorant, as it's been portrayed. I think he's a bully, and per the maxim about punching a bully in the nose, the way you curb this particular bully is by beating him. He was oddly deflated and detached-seeming after losing in Iowa. If this campaign is a massive ego-feed for him, his ego trip ends when he loses. It's just that the shower of mediocrities who've shared the stage with him haven't been able to pull it off yet. Lindsey Graham, after the first debate, said something to the effect of "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys." That says it all, to me. He's terrible, but what does it say about them that they can't seem to lay a glove on him?

I think the situation has come to a head because of the singular personality of Trump, but its roots are in the weakness of the Republican party. For years now it's been the captive of the Tea Party, where cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is pretty much the price of admission. They have no interest in governing and value purity over results, every time. That dynamic has continued to shrink the demographic appeal of the party, and I'm not really certain how that trend is going to be reversed.

There was a lot of comment from the national press about the appearance of Rubio on the stump in SC with Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. The picture that was painted was of youth and diversity, but the optics were just papering over the fact that the party's appeal has narrowed to a swath of folks who represent just the opposite. One thing I will say about Hillary is that, despite the jokes and memes about her courting the black vote in SC, or her attempts to run the table with female voters by any means necessary, she represents something more than window dressing. Her team and the various state apparati that support her are legitimately diverse across numerous fronts, and her appeal to women and minorities is probably more legitimately informed and earned than her detractors are willing to credit. The Trump phenomenon, for the moment, exists within the context of the party for whose nomination he's running. He's found a message that resonates with that crowd, and that's what's going to have to change.

This is really good analysis. The only thing I would add is that both parties have ignored the white, working class vote for about four decades and as the stress of that serial ignorance reached the managerial class, it has coalesced into a movement that has given us a candidate like Trump. Trump has avoided the sideshows on the social issues and the faux love of the Constitution that have pervaded conservative thought for the past couple of decades, instead honing a message around economic issues, which is probably closer to the traditional Republican train of thought than anyone else in the Republican field. Sure, there is a strong nativist and racially motivated element in his base, but that's been around since Reagan's wooing of blue collar workers in 1980. I think the other angle here is that Trump is successfully portraying himself as a "doer," which differentiates him from a guy like Cruz who would seemingly shut down the government because he doesn't like the choices on the Capitol cafeteria menu. Far from being the extreme bloc that wants to avoid any action, most Americans--including conservatives--realize that compromise is part of the game and that a stalemated government is in no one's best interest.

As I said in another thread, Trump is in a very unique position. He can basically tell Republicans, you may win with me, but you'll lose without me because I'll run as a third party candidate. Could be a little late to get on the ballot in a number of states as a third party guy, but a Trump not playing nice during the fall campaign would likely torpedo any Republican's chance of winning.

[Julio3000]

This is really good analysis. The only thing I would add is that both parties have ignored the white, working class vote for about four decades and as the stress of that serial ignorance reached the managerial class, it has coalesced into a movement that has given us a candidate like Trump. Trump has avoided the sideshows on the social issues and the faux love of the Constitution that have pervaded conservative thought for the past couple of decades, instead honing a message around economic issues, which is probably closer to the traditional Republican train of thought than anyone else in the Republican field. Sure, there is a strong nativist and racially motivated element in his base, but that's been around since Reagan's wooing of blue collar workers in 1980. I think the other angle here is that Trump is successfully portraying himself as a "doer," which differentiates him from a guy like Cruz who would seemingly shut down the government because he doesn't like the choices on the Capitol cafeteria menu. Far from being the extreme bloc that wants to avoid any action, most Americans--including conservatives--realize that compromise is part of the game and that a stalemated government is in no one's best interest.

As I said in another thread, Trump is in a very unique position. He can basically tell Republicans, you may win with me, but you'll lose without me because I'll run as a third party candidate. Could be a little late to get on the ballot in a number of states as a third party guy, but a Trump not playing nice during the fall campaign would likely torpedo any Republican's chance of winning.

Yeah, this is definitely part of the appeal. Republicans have been wooing those folks with social issues and the table scraps of trickle-down economics. Democrats have promised, but not delivered, affordable health care and higher education. Trump is winning with vague but energetic promises to do . . . something.

[Julio3000]

What I find interesting (mildly) is that Ds lay the blame for Trump solely at the feet of Rs and never ever consider that their own push and agenda has something to do with it all...

Trump is winning because people hate you guys and want to punch you in the face. They see you as smug, self-righteous, and as a threat. You are Joy Behar. You are that leftie kid in school that was always so annoying.

Well, B, I take it as a matter of course that Republican primary voters feel that way. Ted Cruz voters don't hate Democrats any less than do Trump voters. They probably hate them more, since I'd wager that they're more ideologically driven than Trumpistas.

The demonization of the opposition works across the board. It's even starker when the opposition is in the WH. Sorry, but that's not explaining Trump or Trump-ism.

[BedellBrave]

I guess some people grow up (evolve) and some stay in grade school forever.

"leftie kid in school"? Now that's a revealing phrase and first time I have ever seen it before. I seriously have no idea what it means.


Were you then that sort of guy in school Runnin?

Just telling you what those voters think of you guys. And suggesting that we shouldn't always just blame others even when the others are so retrograde stooges and racists and homophobes and warmongers.

[BedellBrave]

Well, B, I take it as a matter of course that Republican primary voters feel that way. Ted Cruz voters don't hate Democrats any less than do Trump voters. They probably hate them more, since I'd wager that they're more ideologically driven than Trumpistas.

The demonization of the opposition works across the board. It's even starker when the opposition is in the WH. Sorry, but that's not explaining Trump or Trump-ism.

Just sharing the mirrors with you guys who just love to explain Trump and laud Hillary's smarts.

[sturg33]

I agree to a point with Bedell, I feel a like a lot of Trump's surge is because of the political correct left... and the idea that "if you'd don't see it our way, you're a racist, ignorant bigot who doesn't deserve ot breathe our air" attitude that the left espouses. Trump is the guy who is willing to say what everyone else hasn't been willing to, and that appeals to some people

[57Brave]

as in Mexicans are rapists and Islam should be banned.

What y'all don't get , since Reagan, it's not the messenger, it's the message. Trump isn't the issue any more than Romney or McCain before him. It is the policies that people reject. People didn't vote for Obama twice because of the color of his skin, even Romney recognized that, 47% comment. Which I agree with, 47% of the voting public rejects the language / policies of the right

[57Brave]

no matter. It is easy to on the surface say oh, people just want free stuff. Phrased from the rights viewpoint. that might appear to be so. But for the 54%that elected Obama, it wasn't free stuff.

So yeah, Trump is saying what others won"t say. And that is his appeal. But He gets a steady 30% of (R) voters.
Same 30% that still believes Obama is a Manchurian creation.

How did the Clinton team get him elected? Stress policies to make people's lives better.Or, fill the dam potholes

[Julio3000]

I agree to a point with Bedell, I feel a like a lot of Trump's surge is because of the political correct left... and the idea that "if you'd don't see it our way, you're a racist, ignorant bigot who doesn't deserve ot breathe our air" attitude that the left espouses. Trump is the guy who is willing to say what everyone else hasn't been willing to, and that appeals to some people

I certainly agree with the idea that a lot of the loudest support for Trump is in reaction to the perception of PC culture. I've got no problem with that analysis.

Where I run into trouble is in the application of that idea. I suppose it's too much to ask that people exercise a little discernment when they consider the veracity of statements that "others haven't been willing" to say.

[50PoundHead]

I agree to a point with Bedell, I feel a like a lot of Trump's surge is because of the political correct left... and the idea that "if you'd don't see it our way, you're a racist, ignorant bigot who doesn't deserve ot breathe our air" attitude that the left espouses. Trump is the guy who is willing to say what everyone else hasn't been willing to, and that appeals to some people

They certainly take different forms, but there is a political correctness that stems from both ends of the spectrum and Trump blows that all out of the water. I watched his CNN interview the other day, and while he takes a kind of anti-intellectual stance (probably better labeled as an anti-expertise stance), he certainly goes beyond any language "playbook." I think people find that refreshing.

[sturg33]

They certainly take different forms, but there is a political correctness that stems from both ends of the spectrum and Trump blows that all out of the water. I watched his CNN interview the other day, and while he takes a kind of anti-intellectual stance (probably better labeled as an anti-expertise stance), he certainly goes beyond any language "playbook." I think people find that refreshing.

You mind posting it? I saw an interview he did recently where he was speaking about our foreign policy - and someone seemed to turn the crazy off... He was pretty thoughtful and I agreed with much of what he said

[Runnin]

Were you then that sort of guy in school Runnin?

Perhaps on the inside, but I was more class clown and jock than anything. I'm sure there were political discussions in my HS but I wasn't mature enough to be concerned.

Just telling you what those voters think of you guys.
I already fear the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News crowd and know they/you are capable of most anything, even occasionally having a progressive thought.

[50PoundHead]

You mind posting it? I saw an interview he did recently where he was speaking about our foreign policy - and someone seemed to turn the crazy off... He was pretty thoughtful and I agreed with much of what he said

Here it is. I think the thing to remember here is that this is right after a big win and he's in a jovial mood, so he loves everybody and is in the position to be diplomatic. I frankly don't know what the parallel to Trump is. Probably a more well-behaved Berlusconi.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/21/sotu-tapper-donald-trump-full-interview.cnn

[Oklahomahawk]

Bedell, I'm no Trump fan... but I hate Rubio even more. This is a good article that sums up my thoughts pretty well

LINK: Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump)

I've been saying this for a long time, but I was talking about Cruz, not Rubio. Do you think he would really be this extreme (like in the article) or is it just rhetoric to fire up the base and get votes/delegates? This article actually sounds a lot like the US Senator for Arkansas that I have to hear about all the time, Tom Cotton. Imagine if the two of them ever got together to plan foreign policy.

Bedell, do you really think Rubio is gonna be a "status quo" guy? I'm afraid that will only kill us as a nation more slowly. We need changes and lots of them, but not from the frying pan into the fire, the other way around.

[50PoundHead]

Bedell, I'm no Trump fan... but I hate Rubio even more. This is a good article that sums up my thoughts pretty well

LINK: Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11067932/rubio-worse-than-trump)

Thanks for posting the Rubio link.

I think the only two people in the race who passed basic math are Kasich and Hillary. People can dislike them for one thing or another, but they seem to be closer to planet Earth than everyone else.

[Julio3000]

Rubio and Cruz both seem to have pulled their foreign policy folks from the neocon bench. I wish I had the ability to fail upwards like those cats do.

[BedellBrave]

I've been saying this for a long time, but I was talking about Cruz, not Rubio. Do you think he would really be this extreme (like in the article) or is it just rhetoric to fire up the base and get votes/delegates? This article actually sounds a lot like the US Senator for Arkansas that I have to hear about all the time, Tom Cotton. Imagine if the two of them ever got together to plan foreign policy.

Bedell, do you really think Rubio is gonna be a "status quo" guy? I'm afraid that will only kill us as a nation more slowly. We need changes and lots of them, but not from the frying pan into the fire, the other way around.


OHawk, I think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't actually. Hillary and Rubio, to a lesser extent, will be status quo and agreeable to Wall Street and the military industry. I think Cruz actually will as well (banks and military). Who in the world knows what Trump will do. Bernie is done.

[Oklahomahawk]

OHawk, I think we are damned if we do and damned if we don't actually. Hillary and Rubio, to a lesser extent, will be status quo and agreeable to Wall Street and the military industry. I think Cruz actually will as well (banks and military). Who in the world knows what Trump will do. Bernie is done.

Let's hope Bernie holds on at least long enough to give everyone a chance to see (and hopefully videotape) Hillary's "shenanigans" so she won't be able to do them again in November, unless it's Cruz she's running against, then I say anything goes because screwed doesn't even begin to describe what I would think about a Hillary-Cruz matchup this November.

[BedellBrave]

This is the best analysis of Trumpism. Link (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/why-evangelicals-are-born-again-for-donald-trump.html)

[BedellBrave]

"...We know how southern evangelicals typically impact the Republican presidential stakes. You only have to look back to 2008 and 2012, when Mitt Romney was repeatedly dogged by accusations that he was only pretending to be pro-life. Romney had to construct an entire narrative of how his opinion on the issue had shifted, and when, and make the case for himself repeatedly as someone who could be trusted on the issue despite his prior positions on abortion. His Mormon faith was also a barrier for some evangelicals, though most swallowed their concerns and came out to vote for him in an election they felt would direct the future of the country.

But since 2012, the nation has changed. Romney ran the last campaign of the pre-gay marriage era. The years since have seen an explosion of controversy over political correctness, with battles over safe spaces, speech codes, and the assertion of privilege spreading from academia into the broader culture. The flashpoint in this new phase of the culture war is the issue of speech: what our culture and politics will allow you to say, and where you are allowed to say it.
For southern evangelical Americans, the culture has changed rapidly and dramatically, in ways they find at odds with their understanding of their faith and their country. For decades, religious leaders have spoken about the risks facing the nation in apocalyptic terms—and in a sense, the difference between 2012 and 2016 is a post-apocalyptic one for social conservatives.

Gay marriage is the law of the land and they feel Christians are being dragooned into going along with it. The Little Sisters of the Poor are suing the government as it seeks to compel them to pay for contraceptives that the Catholic order considers to be abortifacients. Planned Parenthood is still getting taxpayer dollars despite what conservatives consider to be plentiful evidence that is has traded human organs for cash. Meanwhile, the man who provided that evidence is the one facing indictment.

Evangelicals have for decades believed that the country was more conservative than not, more Christian than not. The bipartisanship on religious liberty and the civic faith of the country was conducive to that. Now they’ve woken up to a reality in the Obama years that this was a polite fiction. They worry that coaches getting fired over praying at schools, fire chiefs getting fired for citing scripture, bakers getting bankrupted over their refusal to bake a cake—their entire perspective on Christian faith as a key element of what made America great has been swept away.

In this post-apocalyptic environment, it becomes increasingly clear why southern evangelicals would drop their requirements that a political leader who seeks their backing be one of them, ideologically or faithfully. They have different priorities now: they want an ally who will protect them, regardless of his personal ethics.

That’s why Trump has been able to peel away so many evangelicals as his supporters, despite being an unchurched secularist with three wives who couldn’t tell a communion plate from an offering basket. It is because of the increasingly large portion of evangelicals who believe the culture wars are over, and they lost.
If you’re a conservative who thinks the culture wars are over (they’re never really over, of course), then you are a lot more open to the idea of a unprincipled blowhard who promises he’s got your back on political correctness. From the perspective of the southern evangelicals I’ve spoken to in South Carolina, they don’t have any qualms about admitting that Trump is not a good Christian. They have no illusions about his unbelief. The difference is that while they believe Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would be one more round of good soldiers for their cause, they think Donald Trump would be a tank.

Evangelicals tried for years to fight for the culture—to win the argument for their traditional views regarding marriage, family, and the value of human life. Now they want to fight on different ground: political correctness. And since Trump is the king of that—an ally who isn’t Jesus-y but says he’s with the Jesus people—he can tear off a third of that evangelical electorate without moderating any of his secularism.

Ever since the 1980s and the Moral Majority, evangelicals have been loyal to the Republican Party, giving their votes in return for promises on abortion, family, and other arenas of policy which promised them protection for their churches and their priorities. These policies were supposed to serve as a defense against losing the culture war. But for all this loyalty, evangelicals have little to show for it.

Republican judicial nominees have been a mixed bag at best. George W. Bush never reasserted the Reagan Rule on abortion funding. Roe v. Wade is still on the books. And religious liberty has been a line a surprising number of Republicans are unwilling to defend, lest they be called bigots.

Some evangelicals now believe this approach is a failure at best, and a lie at worst. On the one hand, that inspires a desire for revenge—on the other, for just walking away. Both tendencies aid the Trump phenomenon.

He is not one of them—they know that. But they believe he is for them at a time when their faith and beliefs have become politically incorrect. They know he doesn’t care if he’s called a bigot, and that is a very powerful thing in today’s political fray. They don’t care if he’s a good person—they care that he’s a warrior for everything at odds with the elite opinion of the day… which now includes them.

Congratulations to the American left: you asked to win the culture wars—and evangelicals are giving you Donald J. Trump."

[BedellBrave]

Any takers?