RINO Carl Rove is upset. He doesn’t believe that any of these candidates can become president. He said that based on polling, all three candidates lose to Clinton and Sanders. That statement isn’t really true. The polls do show Kasich beating both Sanders and Clinton. That speaks volumes about the accuracy of polling. But polling this year has not been about accuracy. It’s been about stopping Trump and to a lesser extent, Cruz.
Think about it. Polling started out this year showing Jeb Bush with a huge lead despite the fact that no one wanted to vote for him, but he was the candidate the establishment wanted and the democrats wanted to run against. At the polls, Bush did much worse than the polls indicated. Same thing with failed business woman Carly Fiorina, renowned surgeon Ben Carson, Mr Open Borders Rubio and maybe one or two others. That narrative was accelerated after Trump entered the race and immediately became the frontrunner.
Rove was being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, who asked him:
“If Donald Trump is the nominee, how do you recover from a 30 percent favorable/63 percent unfavorable, as you note in your column today?”
To which Rove replied:
“Look, I don’t think it’s possible. You know, he claims that he can be presidential when he needs to be. If he wants to change those numbers, he ought to start acting in a presidential manner, whatever he thinks that is, because right now, his numbers are abysmal. I mean, 30 percent, no one has ever been nominated for president with numbers this bad. And nobody has ever won the presidency with numbers anywhere near this bad by the time of the election. Now maybe the numbers are pliable for him. I doubt it. But he’d better show us some evidence by July 18th that he can change these numbers. He may be popular inside the Republican Party, though he has only gotten an average of 37 percent of the votes. But among general election voters, he’s more than 2-2-1 negative.”
Rove does not explain how Trump is getting so many votes if he so unworldly unpopular. Let’s look at the votes in democratic and swing states and see if there is a pattern. We can’t do Iowa because the democrats refused to release vote totals. (Probably because that would have shown Sanders beating Clinton) What we do know is that republicans set a record for caucus voters, while democrat’s numbers were the lowest in a very long time. I will not include reliable red states because republicans will always outdraw democrats and it doesn’t reflect what we are looking at.
New Hampshire….This state is usually reliable for the democrats. Democratic candidates got a total of 250,983 votes. Republicans scored 284,120. While it’s true Hillary got many more votes than Trump, she only really had one opponent while Trump faced nine.
Arkansas…The democrats received 218,120 votes and republicans received 406,522. Hillary got about 10,000 more votes than Trump but she only had one opponent and Trump had four.
Virginia…Democrats 783,895 votes. Republicans 1,024,913
Maine…A reliably democratic state. Democrats 3,470 vote. Republicans 18,627
Idaho…Democrats 23,884 republicans 222,213 Trump got 100,942 votes Clinton got 5,065
Michigan…Another reliable democratic state democrats 1,194643 republicans 1,324,621
Florida…Swing state won by Obama twice. Known for it’s close votes. democrats 1,702,878 republicans 2,355,183 Hillary got just 20,000 more votes than Trump but she faced 1 opponent and Trump faced 3 including native son, Marco Rubio
Ohio …Another big prize that Obama won twice democrats 1,202,163 republicans 2,043,043 Trump beat Clinton by 48,000 votes and he finished second to a popular governor, John Kasich
In 2012 Barack Obama garnered 332 electoral votes. Subtracting from that total the states that he won and the democrats were outvoted in so far and that total is 251 electoral votes, 19 short of election and that is assuming that she wins every other state Obama won in 2012.
I have a better idea. Let’s keep Trump, Cruz and Kasich and dump RINO Rove.