Sunday, August 5, 2018

Voters favor another summit between Trump and Putin in fall 2018, The Hill HarrisX poll, July 2018. Results are consistent with Feb. 2017 McClatchy-Marist poll in which voters favored detente with Russia. Elected Republicans continue to ignore voters and incite hatred of Russia. The War Industry wins every election. They can’t tell you how-“it’s classified”-The Hill, McClatchy

87 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents support another summit with Putin, The Hill Harrs X Poll. Conducted online July 21-22 among random sample of 1,001 voters 

7/23/18, Poll: Most Americans back Trump’s call for follow-up summit with Putin, The Hill, Julia Manchester 

“President Trump’s proposal for a follow-up summit this fall with Russian President Vladimir Putin is supported by a majority of Americans, according to a poll released Monday afternoon. 

The American Barometer poll, a joint project of The Hill and the HarrisX polling company, found that 54 percent of respondents back Trump’s plan for a second summit with the Russian leader, this time in Washington, D.C. Forty-six percent of respondents opposed the idea. 

The survey also found that 61 percent of Americans say better relations with Russia are in the best interest of the United States. 

The results were released Monday afternoon on Hill TV’s new polling show, “What America’s Thinking,” hosted by Joe Concha. The American Barometer will measure the public’s sentiment on various issues on a daily basis. 

The survey was conducted online July 21-22 among a randomly selected sample of 1,001 voters. The results were then weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, employment, education, political party and political ideology where necessary to align respondents with the actual proportion of people with those traits in the overall population.

Concha and a panel of polling experts said the poll results show that Americans can separate the nation’s long-term interests from the negative media coverage of Trump’s first summit with Putin in Helsinki last week.

For instance, the poll found 60 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of Russia in the aftermath [such as his embarrassing Deep State walk back] of the summit, but they approve of holding another summit, with 87 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents supporting another meeting with Putin. 

“The American voter has a very healthy and nuanced perspective on the issue,” HarrisX CEO Dritan Nesho said on “What America’s Thinking.” 

“They support the president on his position on the issues, as we saw, and actually have a pretty pragmatic view about how we should handle Russia,” Nesho added. They believe in engagement with Russia, they believe in dialogue with Russia, and they’re not worried about an invitation to President Putin this fall.”

“At the same time voters thought the President’s performance in Helsinki left something to be desired, as indicated by his 40 percent approval on how he’s handling Russia,” he said.”

Added: Congress sharply out of step with American voters and with US president:

7/25/18, “‘Shock’ Poll: Most Americans Support Another Trump/Putin Summit… But Congress Says ‘No!’,” Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams 

“According to a new poll by HarrisX Polling Company and The Hill newspaper, more than half of all Americans – and nearly 90 percent of Trump voterssupport President Trump’s invitation to his Russian counterpart to the US for another meeting. Meanwhile,House Speaker Paul Ryan and his colleagues in Republican leadership are steadfastly opposed. What does it mean for Congressional leaders to be so out of step with Americans – and their president – on this issue?”…

Added: Similar poll Feb. 15-19, 2017, McClatchy-Marist, poll, telephone interviews. Poll: Majority of Republicans back Trump Russia policy,” 865 registered voters. “This survey of 1,073 adults was conducted Feb. 15-19, 2017, by The Marist Poll, sponsored and funded in partnership with McClatchy  Voters had same view that US should have detente with Russia. 73% of Republicans favored detente: 73 percent, appear ready to dismiss [alleged congressional GOP] leadership’s concerns with GOP “decades old” policy of being anti-Russian.

McClatchy notes that congressional Establishment GOP “leaders”–who were massively rejected by voters and shouldn’t have a say about anything–are sticking to their “decades-old party principles” against Russia which has only existed for 26 years to begin with. The first ten years of Russia’s existence consisted of US elites plundering the country, destroying its middle class, exercising its belief that Russia was “ours to lose.”

Russia is of secondary importance to the US taxpayer funded War Industry. The first priority is keeping US taxpayers enslaved to the War Industry. McClatchy isn’t worried about that, is worried about their War Industry pals in congress:

“The results reveal the challenge congressional Republicans face trying to maintain decades-old party principles concerning Russia, views that conflict with the president’s new objectives.”…This is proof if needed that US elections are a fraud for all the world to see and should be cancelled. The War Party wins–and they can’t tell you why–“it’s classified.” US taxpayers are slaves to the Endless Unwinnable War Industry.

The US of course is in no position to advise others about anything. The US is no longer a country. It has open borders and fake elections.

Feb. 22, 2017, Poll: Majority of Republicans back Trump Russia policy,” McClatchy via Kansas City Star, Franco Ordonez 

Republicans remain firmly supportive of President Donald Trump’s overtures to Russia, even as the GOP’s congressional leaders are wary. 

A new McClatchy-Marist poll found large majority of Republicans, 73 percent, appear ready to dismiss [alleged] leadership’s concerns about getting too close to the [alleged] longtime adversary amid worries about alleged meddling of U.S. elections and the annexation of Crimea [following US engineered overthrow of Ukraine government].

Only 10 percent of Republicans actually think it’s a bad thing. Also telling is that an equal number of independents, 43 percent, think it’s as good idea as it is a bad idea to improve ties with Russia. 

The results reveal the challenge congressional Republicans face trying to maintain decades-old party principles concerning Russia, 

We got to get along some way or another,” said Niel McClure, 72, a Vietnam veteran and former farm manager from Cumming, Georgia. “When we go over there causing problems with Russia, it’s stupid.” 

The ranks of Republicans who feel Trump acted unethically, if not illegally, are in the single digits…. 

Congressional Republicans will want to be careful. More than 80 percent of Republicans don’t think Trump has done anything wrong. In fact, only 7 percent of Republicans think he might have done something unethical, but not illegal. Just 2 percent think he did something illegal.

Michelle Preusch, a former corporate controller who now owns a jewelry business, feels some Republican leaders have tunnel vision and simply can’t let go of outdated policies. 

“I don’t believe making enemy of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin serves us in any way, said Preusch, 57, of Lake Mary, Florida. “Maybe Putin oversteps his bounds. That is the man he is. But to make an enemy out of him because he doesn’t see things your way 100 percent of the time, it’s not in our best interest.”… 

865 registered voters. “This survey of 1,073 adults was conducted Feb. 15-19, 2017, by The Marist Poll, sponsored and funded in partnership with McClatchy. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the contiguous United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed in English by telephone using live interviewers. Landline telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from ASDE Survey Sampler Inc. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Respondents in the household were randomly selected by first asking for the youngest male. This landline sample was combined with respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers from Survey Sampling International. After the interviews were completed, the two samples were combined and balanced to reflect the 2013 American Community Survey one-year estimates for age, gender, income, race and region. Results are statistically significant within ±3.0 percentage points. There are 865 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±3.3 percentage points. The error margin was not adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulation.”

Added: Beltway Republicans continue to openly scorn wishes of Republican voters and the American public. Everyone knows the US is no longer a democracy, that it has fake elections, that its citizens are slaves of the Endless Unwinnable War Industry:

7/24/18, “McConnell: Ryan and I Have ‘Made It Clear That Putin Will Not Be Welcome’ at the Capitol,” Breitbart, Ian Hatchett 

“Senate Majority Leader McConnell: 

The Speaker and I have made it clear that Putin will not be welcome up here at the
— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 24, 2018″ 

“While speaking to reporters at a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that both he and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) “have made it clear” that Vladimir Putin “will not be welcome” in the Capitol.

McConnell was asked by one of the reporters about the merits of the White House’s invitation to Putin to visit the US. 

McConnell said, “Well, I can only speak for the Congress

[Wrong again]. The speaker and I have made it clear that Putin will not be welcome up here at the Capitol.” 

Among comments


It’s not customary for world leaders to visit the Capitol, but RINO Ryan and Sad Cartoon Turtle Mitch have to do their part to keep the Russophobia going at a fever pitch so as to placate their major war profiteering donors and keep them happy.”


Maybe we the People could insist they actually DO THEIR JOBS, instead of extending or choosing not to extend invitations? Pass some Laws, Fund Border Security and the Wall, and REPEAL arcane Laws. THAT ought to keep them busy, the annoying twits.”


McConnell and Ryan are globalist pimps..period! Trump and Putin have all the dirt on the Deep State it’s no wonder they are pushing back so hard! 

Throw out the welcome mat President Trump..We the People Love how you represent US!”


My honest opinion is that RYAN AND MCCONNELL are not welcome at the Capitol. These two RINO freaks have caused enough damage to our republic. As I recall, neither one of these RINOs even once called out Obama for his NUMEROUS capitulations to Putin.”


Yes, these losers, Ryan and McConnell, have made yet another, meaningless, clownish posturing gesture; Putin will come at the President’s invitation, to speak with HIM, not Congress, or either of them. Neither of these arrogant morons seems to have gotten the message yet that neither of them is President!”


Now I really hope Trump invites Putin to a State Dinner at the White House. Paul Ryan has no problem welcoming illegals to our country. McConnell needs to focus his little mind on getting Kavanaugh confirmed and not worry about the Russian boogeyman under his bed.”


Why do the RINO neocons want to provoke conflict with Russia? Isn’t radical Islam and China problems enough? President Trump is right to at least try to recruit allies against China and Islam.”

Added: McConnell and Ryan were fine with selling one fifth of US uranium to Russia. And they had no problem when Putin endorsed Obama over Romney in 2012 noting Obama had said he’d give Russia more of what it wanted on the missile shield. They were fine that the corrupt US State Dept. had no IG during Mrs. Clinton’s entire 4 years there.

NY Times Editorial Board banner on May 3, 2016:
Above, headline of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board admitted that the 2016 Republican voters’ message “is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them.”…

May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board:

“Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing.
That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them.”…


March 2, 2016, How the Republican Party earned a hostile takeover,” NY Post, Mark Cunningham, opinion 

“All the noise about Donald Trump’s “hostile takeover” of the Republican Party misses a key point: Such takeovers only succeed when existing management has failed massively. 

And that’s true of both the GOP and the conservative movement. 

Trump’s a disrupter — but most of the fire aimed his way is just shooting the messenger.Start with this: A few weeks ago, when Washington Post and New York Times reporters sought the Republican establishment’s reaction to Trump, the folks they dug up to talk to were a bunch of consultants and lobbyists.

That is, mercenaries — guys who get paid, win or lose. 

They’re not (all) without principle, but they have a huge vested interest in the conventional fields and styles of combat that they’ve mastered — which earn them very, very good livings.

Really, they’re no different from the lefty lobbyists now cashing in from their access to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

And the Times-Post crowd wasn’t wrong: They’re the closest thing the GOP has to “wise men.” There are no sage party elders to go to. 

I asked Ed Cox, the New York GOP chief, about this not long ago. His reply: “If you find the Republican establishment, let me know — I can’t find them anywhere.” 

Cox is President Richard Nixon’s son-in-law; he’s been around Republican politics for five decades. If he says there’s no there there, there isn’t. 

Beyond the mercenaries, you’ve got a variety of pundits and talk-radio jocks — folks whose job is to entertain a (large) niche audience. They’re focused on their niches — and inevitably view the general interest of the GOP, as well as the nation, through those blinders. 

Much of the punditry’s now pointing Trump-blame fingers at the GOP “donor class” for leading the party astray — bribing pols to embrace open borders, avoid social issues, etc., etc. 

It’s a fair point: You know all you need to about the donors’ political judgment by noting that they dumped $150 million on Jeb Bush — when Jeb would’ve been a low-energy loser by now even if Trump were still off doing “The Apprentice.” (The donors’ other early fave, Scott Walker, dropped out even earlier, also for cause.)

But the money men stumbled into this leading role because, ever since the Reagan years, the GOP regulars and the conservatives have been aiming for the Gipper’s second coming merely by imposing ever-stricter ideological tests.

That has produced a stream of candidates competing over who can best mouth the catechism, plus somehow pick up enough other votes to take the White House.

Today, the main alternatives to Trump are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — each a specialist in pushing one or another set of right-wing buttons.

Which leaves them stiff. 

Cruz’s best real moment so far came when he talked about trying to get his sister out of that crack house — everything else is a rehearsed performance.

Until last week, Rubio was just a smoother, more “uplifting” Cruz. Marco’s far more loose, authentic and appealing now that he’s trading low blows with Trump — he’s a real person, rather than some bizarre savant finding the right mini-speech in his memory. Maybe the change has come in time . . .

Anyway, both offer pretty much the same “Unify the party and add a few more voters somewhere” strategy for the general election that’s been failing for the GOP since 1998.

The one time it (barely) worked, we got Dubya. 

The big early achievements of the Bush presidency were, at best, technocratic, not conservative: No Child Left Behind, the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement and some temporary tax cuts. 

Then came 9/11 — and soon the best and the brightest of the Republican Party gave us the Iraq debacle (much as the Democrats’ best and brightest had given us Vietnam a generation before). 

After that, conventional GOP thinking gave us the John McCain and Mitt Romney nominations — neither a winner, nor even that good a competitor. 

And Romney actually tried to win by reaching out to the very same voters whom Trump’s now locked up, and by using the same issues: In 2012, Mitt was a hawk on immigration and on China trade — he just couldn’t make the voters believe it. 

I can’t say whether Trump will get my vote when the primaries come to our neck of the woods, but I don’t resent his existence or his success, nor blame him for destroying the GOP.

The Republicans pulled that one off all by themselves.”

Added: “The real landslide of 2016” was what Trump did to the GOP in the primaries: 

1/3/2017, “Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016.”…CNBC, Jake Novak

Added: The two major parties are really one UniParty, extreme globalists who share views on loose borders (if any at all), endless military interventions, and massive free trade deals. That leaves half the electorate without a political party: 

6/27/2016, “The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists.”

“He managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes….He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American. 

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation….In foreign policy, the liberal interventionists who would staff a Hillary administration line up seamlessly with neoconservatives in support of continued American “hegemony.” Opposition to this establishment consensus has been advancing, by fits and starts, and is now too large to be ignored.” 

6/27/2016, Why Trump Wins,” “He knows border wars have replaced culture wars. The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell

Added: As to so-called “right wing” or “conservative” media by Doug Ibendahl in his Jan. 2016 article. He says Conservative Entertainment Complex “nattering nabobs of negativism” have been “hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions.” The following article on this topic by Mr. Ibendahl was prompted by National Review’s Jan. 2016 issue entitled, “Against Trump.” (image at end of post) featuring 22 anti-Donald Trump missives from “self-appointed conservative potentates.” “The Gang of 22 had their chance. They’ve done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some. But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 [alphabetical list] got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose:”

1/22/2016, National Review just handed Donald Trump the Election,Republican Newswatch, by Doug Ibendahl “Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party.”

11/9/2015, Trump in Springfield, Illinois
National Review’s publication of the collective anti-Donald Trump missives from 22 self-appointed conservative potentates has caused quite a stir in Republican circles. 

The nationwide responses range from, “Wait, I thought National Review went out of business years ago,” to “Ed Meese? Seriously?” 

The Gang of 22 have officially become parodies of themselves. One would have to reach back to the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew to lift an adequate quote to describe them. 

“Nattering nabobs of negativism,” “vicars of vacillation,” “pusillanimous pussyfooters,” “the decadent few,” “ideological eunuchs,” “the effete corps of impudent snobs,” or “the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history” – take your pick, because they all apply about equally well to each and every one of them. 

So clueless is the Gang of 22 they can’t even see how they’ve stumbled right into the narrative Trump’s been communicating so successfully for months. Just like the elected officials from both parties, the Gang of 22 has been GREAT at complaining about stuff, year, after year, after year.

But getting anything accomplished? Not so much.

Many of the Gang of 22 have been hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions.

Donald Trump represents a threat to these ineffectual poohbahs in the same way he represents a threat to do-nothing public officials.
Jealousy is also seriously at work here. Trump is inspiring and exciting a broad spectrum of the country like no member of the Gang of 22 ever has, or ever will.

In just seven months of campaigning, Trump already has more Americans listening to a Republican message than the entire Gang of 22 could muster over decades. Trump understands that before you can advance the ball, you have to convince people to take time from their busy lives to listen. No one on the GOP side since Ronald Reagan has accomplished that like Trump.

No one else has come close, and certainly no one from that “effete corps of impudent snobs” to which the National Review thinks we should defer. 

The Gang of 22 had their chance. They’ve done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some. 

But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose. 

At the same time when Americans look at Donald Trump’s life they get a lot of assurance that here is finally a man who shares their focus on actually getting results. And Trump returns the respect by recognizing regular hard-working Americans are a lot smarter than any of the “ideological eunuchs” in all of their pontificating glory. 

The “pusillanimous pussyfooters” love to nitpick Trump’s words, but what voters are looking for this year is competence and accomplishment. Donald Trump has an actual record of delivering both in spades.
The Gang of 22 is right to be terrified. A President who could get things done would expose them as the irrelevant creatures they truly are.

It can’t happen fast enough.“

Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party.” image via Republican Newswatch

Added: Image of National Review cover, “Against Trump,” Jan. 21, 2016
Jan. 21, 2016 NR cover

Added: Interesting from WaPo but we found out later in 2016 that voters aren't allowed to choose US presidents:

3/15/2016, “Rubio’s demise marks the last gasp of the Republican reboot,” Washington Post, Robert Costa, Philip Rucker, West Miami, Fla. 

“”Those very elegant papers it published and conferences it held may have been good and smart, but they didn’t really matter,” said William J. Bennett, a conservative talk-show host and former education secretary in Ronald Reagan’s administration. “Instead, everyone who’s been prominent for the last 15 to 20 years finds themselves getting pushed out.”…
Years of carefully laid plans to repackage the Republican Party’s traditional ideas for a fast-changing country came crashing down here on Tuesday when Sen. Marco Rubio suspended his campaign for the presidency after a crippling defeat in his home-state primary. 
Since Mitt Romney’s devastating loss in the 2012 presidential election, the Republican National Committee and leading voices at think tanks, editorial boards and Capitol Hill symposiums have charted a path back to the White House based on inclusive rhetoric and a focus on middle-class issues.
Nobody embodied that vision better than Rubio, a charismatic standard-bearer for conservative orthodoxy who readily embraced the proposals of the right’s elite thinkers. The senator from Florida spoke urgently and eloquently about raising stagnant wages and eradicating poverty. He had an immigrant’s tale to match the rhetoric. And on foreign affairs, he was a passionate defender of the GOP’s hawkish tilt.
But Rubio’s once-promising candidacy, as well as the conservative reform movement’s playbook, was spectacularly undone by Donald Trump and his defiant politics of economic and ethnic grievance. The drift toward visceral populism became an all-consuming rush, leaving Rubio and others unable to adjust.
Rubio’s fall comes weeks after others…dropped out of the race, and  as the donors and institutions who have long supported hawkish fiscal and foreign policies find themselves scrambling to hold onto the consensus that has shaped the GOP for decades.
For many of them, Trump represents a threat to the traditional order of the party and its platform. He does not support overhauling Social Security — a key plank for Romney and GOP congressional leaders — and he was a vocal critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in its aftermath, setting him apart from much of the party’s [self-appointed] high command.
Rubio, whose ascent was propelled by a network of powerful players for years, was supposed to be the candidate best positioned to stop Trump and prevent a Republican rupture.
“Rubio was ready and briefed on policy, that’s for sure, but I just think he never connected,” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is friendly with Trump. “He sounded like someone who was trying to be a lot for a lot of people. That’s hard to do.”…

The RNC drafted an “autopsy” that recommended bolstering appeals to women and minority voters [ie, Obama voters]….

Rubio had been building his base among these [Establishment] Republicans since January 2011, when he began his Senate term. He joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and began to speak at think tanks and meet with scholars, most of them former staffers from George W. Bush’s administration. He hired a number of them for his own staff. 

During his breaks in the Senate, Rubio would often tell colleagues how he was reading papers sent to him from former Republican officials or how he was about to have lunch with another bold-faced name from the Bush years. On his computer, he kept a “drop box” of related policy files compiled by his advisers…. 

As Rubio took the lead on immigration [open borders cheap labor] reform that year — a move that riled the hard right.”…

[Ed. note: What is “the hard right”?]

(continuing): “Rubio followed a similar path with foreign-policy hawks as they began to look for a favorite ahead of the 2016 contest: a flurry of meetings and op-ed articles and, most critically, solidarity on the issues as they bubbled up.

Although Rubio entered 2015 hobbled with parts of the GOP base because of immigration, he carried goodwill among those two constituencies that were driving the Republican establishment: the reformers and and the hawks.

“The critique was there: The Republican Party was out of touch,” said Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former George W. Bush speechwriter. “But the breakdown occurred because we got into a cycle where policy didn’t matter at all. Policy was not just secondary, but it was almost not even in the conversation. And when people tried to interject policy — whether it was Rubio or Bush or others — there was just no appetite for it. It didn’t catch on.””…

[Ed. note: Please note: Close the border. That’s a “policy.” All other “policies” flow from that. Trump was the only person who acknowledged our bondage: that we’re never allowed to put our own country first. He said no country’s citizens should be expected to put other countries’ needs before their own. We’re scorned for daring to wish for a southern border. Trump gave us permission to break the chains binding us to “the international community,” especially to the parasitic endless war industry. The mere mention that US taxpayer global handouts might not be permanent, ie, that US taxpayers might not be global slaves forever–sent shock waves around the world.] 

(continuing): “Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that Rubio campaigned in a way that quickly became obsolete. 

“Rubio was prepared, much like Jeb Bush, for a reasonable dialogue in Washington policy language, offering positions that reflect 40 years of national security and foreign-policy experts.

All of that disappeared. The market didn’t care,” Gingrich said. 
Rubio’s hawkish foreign policy footing, thought to be an asset, was challenged.Trump’s claims of being “militaristic” even though he was inclined against intervention muddled how voters perceived the candidates, disassociating American power with the hawkish ideology of Rubio and the Bush orbit. Trump’s denunciations of George W. Bush’s decision to go into Iraq did not make the hawkish cause any easier…. 

Whit Ayres, Rubio’s pollster, spent the past several years compiling data and published a book showing that Republicans could not afford to alienate minority voters, especially Hispanics, if they ever hope to retake the White House. Watching Rubio’s concession speech on Tuesday night, Ayres was despondent.

“After 2012,” he said, “you thought we’d learned our lesson.””

Comment: Who is “we” Rubio’s pollster speaks of?



No comments: