Donald Trump’s Todd Akin Moment

[bigbadjohn45]

Donald Trump’s Todd Akin Moment
this non-conservative, unfit unelectable buffoon may have finally had his Todd Akin moment
By: Freedoms Truth (Diary) | March 30th, 2016 at 11:59 PM

In 2012, Todd Akin went into an interview, got asked some tough, leading questions, and …blew it. Todd Akin’s campaign died on the heels of him stupidly declaring that ‘legitimate rape’ victims rarely get pregnant, raising questions about his understanding of medical science and sympathy towards rape victims; his doomed campaign limped into the election and went down in certain defeat. In the same way, in an interview with Chris Matthews, Donald Trump just destroyed years of effort by the pro-life movement and other conservatives with his uninformed and unnecessary statement that as a pro-lifer, he thinks there would be some punishment for women who have abortions.

MATTHEWS: … Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes.

MATTHEWS: 10 cents, 10 years, what?

TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...nt_for_women_if_abortion_becomes_illegal.html

Donald Trump has become a self-caricature. His uninformed and damaging comment is not what a life-long pro-life conservative would say, but is a parody of what a conservative would say. He has been rightly condemned by many in the pro-life movement and other conservatives. Donald Trump has been a non-conservative pandering fraud, making statements and taking positions that he doesn’t really believe and hasn’t really thought through.

But unlike Todd Akin, it’s not one statement that does him in. We have long wondered what would do the Teflon Don in. But this week we have had a serious dose of serial stupidity from Trump, showing that Trump is seriously deficient in temperment, in knowledge and common decency, not to mention lack of core conservative convictions:

• Going into the gutter with a retweet attacking Heidi Cruz. Then later, when challenged on it, he acted like a 5-year-old justifying it by falsely accusing Cruz campaign of ‘starting it first’.
• Bizarrely declaring that the Geneva Convention is a rules of engagement problem: “The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight.”
• Declaring the Supreme Court would look into Hillary emails, oblivious to basic differences between executive branch investigations and judicial branch responsibilities.
• Standing by a staffer who should be at least reprimanded, if not fired: His campaign manager man-handles a journalist, then lies about it, blames the victim. Instead of apologizing, Trump stands by him.

It’s almost unfair to Todd Akin, the ambushed slow-on-the-uptake but at least sentient Republican who made one mistake, to compare him to Donald Trump. The above bulletted list is just some of the gaffes and outrages of this week. The deluded Trumpists are voting for a corrupt cronyist lying new york liberal phony who has not thought through the issues.

Will this have election impact? It already has. It is a mistake to think because Trump has still got his core of 30% support in GOP primary polls that he is not impacted. We see it already. Even before these comments, Trump’s prior trash-talking of women, his various rude, childish statements and actions, etc. took a toll. Trump is unelectable:

• Women are turned off Trump: Trump has 73% unfavorables with women. In a hypothetical matchup with Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found this month that Trump loses the women’s vote by 21 points.
• Trump is toxic with voters overall. Donald Trump has a higher unfavorability rating than any nominated candidate from either major political party since Gallup began tracking favorability in 1992, at over 60%. Why? Only a quarter of voters in the polling believe Trump is trustworthy; he’s the only candidate viewed as less trustworthy than Clinton.
• Republicans, in particular Republican are saying ‘no mas’ to Trump: This month, about half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. About 40 percent of male GOP primary voters said the same.
• The latest Marquette poll of Wisconsin (the same one showing Cruz up 10 points for the GOP primary) shows that in that swing state, Trump has 21% favorables and 70% unfavorables among all voters. In head to head polls, Cruz runs even with Hillary and Kasich beats Hillary handily, but Trump loses by double digits to Hillary. This head-to-head is consistent with national polls showing Trump down by double digits.

Trump is unelectable now, and Trump’s gaffes, lack of policy understanding, low-class loutishness, willingness to lie despite clear evidence contradicting it, and his divisiveness will keep him unelectable. None of this means Trump cannot become the nominee. He will simply and certainly be a disaster as a nominee. If nominated, Trump will be our next Todd Akin, a sure loser, a big anchor on the rest of the ticket.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

This was a trap question, as soon as Trump is defeated they will go after the next candidate. When do we focus on Clinton?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, you still don't understand the purpose of our posts is to make it clear nominating Trump will guarantee a Hillary victory in the general election (click link below). All the polls show that if just about anyone other than Trump is nominated, the GOP stands a decent chance of winning and that is why any defense of Trump is a waste of time when all the effort should be devoted to electing someone who can actually defeat Hillary. With respect to your question, everyone knows Hillary is a corrupt lying criminal so why even bother discussing something that has already been discussed to death?

https://www.conservativereview.com/...2-straight-head-to-head-polls-against-clinton

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

OK, your using polls. I am in agreement that most likely Trump would lose to Clinton. Show me the polls that have Cruz beating Clinton in OH, NC, VA and Fl? He needs to win all 4 to have a chance to get to 270.

If we go to contested convention and the goal is to win, then the nominee shouldn't be Trump or Cruz using the data your using to disqualify Trump.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

At this juncture, there isn't any conclusive data showing Cruz beating Hillary head to head in Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida. In some polls Cruz beats Hillary but some show him slightly behind her. However, as I have already shown, Cruz runs a lot closer to Hillary than Trump, who would lose to her in a landslide. As we get closer to July, I believe more polls will show Cruz beating Hillary but I will admit the must win states you cited would be very close between Hillary and Cruz. If polls clearly show Kasich beating Hillary around the time of the GOP Convention, then I wouldn't have any problem with the delegates electing him as the nominee. But in order for that to happen, the GOP Convention would have to change the rules because the rule clearly states Republican nominees must have won a majority of delegates in at least 8 states. As a Cruz supporter, I would much rather see Cruz as the nominee, but if he cannot convince the delegates to vote for him over Kasich and Kasich becomes the nominee, then I would accept the decision of the convention. I don't see that happening because Cruz is already showing signs of taking delegates away from Trump in a contested convention but I guess anything is possible. Obviously, Kasich would win Ohio in the general election and would do well in North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida. Not that Kasich is that great of a candidate but because his unfavorability ratings are much better than Hillary's.

But why do you insist Trump should be given the nomination if he goes to Cleveland with a plurality when all the polls show he would lose to Hillary in a landslide? In a contested convention, do you honestly believe the delegates would elect a nominee who couldn't even win Utah in the general election?

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I don't insist Trump be given the nomination. If the goal is to win, then if its contested, I think the party should pick the candidate that has the best chance to win in November. And that man or woman is probably not one of the three running.

 

[MTLynn]

Washington D.C's number 1 election priority is securing the presidency with a one-world government/new world order figure head.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

I'm in total agreement with Flash in that if Trump is our nominee--he'll lose in a landslide in the general election this fall. His unfavorable ratings are off-the-charts--especially with women. Kasich can crow all he wants about how he's more "electable" in the general, but he's yet to be vetted such as Trump and Cruz have been and it's only April. Let's see what happens tomorrow night after Wisconsin weighs-in and we'll go from there. There's still a long way to go with this saga....