For those confused by the media, Trump supporters are not a cult

I was reading s Drudge link today, to the woefully liberal New Republic about how Trump can win re-election in 2020.  This as he's announced he will run for re-election.  Well into the article, political polling analyst Larry Sabato had this to offer:

“I would say the most distinctive thing about him other than his obnoxiousness is that his followers aren’t a base,” Sabato said. “They’re a cult. This is a cult. They’ve ceded their independent thinking to this man. This is the most intense cult that I can remember in American politics.”

After the visceral reaction of  - "screw you Larry"; you either have drunk the liberal Kool-Aid or else are speaking for a liberal audience and being deliberately condescending and vitriolic in your analysis of Trump supporters - there's actually a reasonable retort to it.

Firstly, like probably every.single.Trump.supporter, I do not agree with the president on everything.  There are things he's pushed for that I think are bad ideas.  However, on the whole I support him.  The same cannot be said for a lot of Democrat supporters on the left;

At least let's call it a saw-off (a tie).  But here's the real problem with Sabato's analysis - he's looking at it from the wrong lens.  The liberal media has pushed SO HARD at president Trump on everything that they have created a reflexive reaction among his supporters - they have solidified the support of Trump supporters as a reaction to their over-the-top negativity.  It's never been a cult of personality - it's a reaction to bias, and even deeper than that, it's a reaction to the liberal cultural elite.  It's not even about Trump, it's about an equal and opposite reaction to the liberal hammering of conservatives.

I used to read Sabato's blog regularly, but he's proven on more than one occasion to be less than factually based.  Maybe it's time to move on.  As far as the whole cult of personality thing, it's way off base.

Sunday Linkaorund

This week, the linkaround focuses on those focused on wresting control of the Senate from the nefarious Harry Reid and putting America back on the path towards some sort of sanity.

If you are a conservative on the fence, particularly in a close-race state, please consider getting out there and voting.  The Republican in the race may not be perfect, but the Democrat is mostly likely perfectly aligned with a wrong-direction president.  That must be addressed.

Pajamas Media: On a tight Connecticut governor's race.

Proof Positive: Ten Buck Friday.

Natural Born Conservative: Georgia's proposed Constitutional amendments.

Sean Trende:  What's the matter with Kansas?

Politico: What the heck is going on with Wendy Davis??? Ed Morrissey comments.

Jay Cost:  Will the GOP fumble at the goal line.

Jim Geraghty: Approaching the second peak?

Larry Sabato: The state of the governors

Election Projection: Governorships bluer, House redder.

Crystal Ball?

Look, I'm not convinced the GOP is going to do everything possible to win the Senate back from Democrats because they don't know how to campaign effectively.  But I think Larry Sabato might be off base on this:

A year ago, it was not hard to find Republican leaders who privately believed the party could score a dramatic breakthrough in the Senate, with the GOP emerging with perhaps 55 or 56 seats. This objective was vital not just for the jousting during President Obama’s final two years in the White House. At least as important is the fact that the GOP sees a much less friendly Senate map in 2016, when it will have to defend 24 of 34 seats, including incumbents elected in 2010 in Democratic states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I don't know that the GOP was thinking 55-56 seats in 2014 other than beyond wishing. While Larry Sabato is a quality prognosticator and interpreter of polling data, this seems a little more of political commentary in nature.

I for one do not buy the premise.  That makes buying the conclusion impossible.

Quote of the Election cycle, 2014

To everything there is a season.  In an analysis of a Larry Sabato analysis of the potential for Republicans to gain Congress and the Senate this year, and in which Sabato states that this cycle will the Republicans' to lose, Ed Morrissey notes that Sabato poins to the the potential of a GOP big win.  That is, if the GOP keeps the focus on Obamacare and conservatives don't shoot the GOP in the foot.

To the latter point, Morrissey sums up the situation perfectly:

In this case, we’re better off getting Republicans elected rather than spending this election in a purification effort. Right now, the majority has got to be the priority.

Truth. 

Obama needs a challenger from the left.

Um yeah. Let's work with these useful idiots.

Want to play pure politics?  Perhaps it's a bit unsavory.  It's not in our nature to engineer results or to tweak the contest in our favor, even if it's something that's perfectly legal, and something that has been done before.  Remember Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos in 2008?  Well, there's something as conservatives we should be doing in preparation for the next election in 2012.  In order to get Obama to lose, we need to help the left.  The far left.  Here's why.

Quick Election Prediction Time

It looks like it's about time to go on record with predictions about the election tomorrow.  Given the volume of campaign information, it's impossible to go through and analyze each race individually, unless your Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook or Jim Geraghty.  Unfortunately,  I'm a data mining guy and would love to do those deep analyses, full time if I could.  But I digress.

Here are my prognostications for the GOP pickups this cycle.  THE GOP is going to be picking up 9 seats in the Senate, with a faint chance still, of making up 10 and getting control of the Senate.  As much as I want to say 10, Manchin's numbers have climbed over the latter part of the race in West Virginia, and there's no counter-burst of  advertising from Raese.  At least nothing that seems to have made an impact.  Hopefully there's a Raese blitz going on today.  To me that's the race to watch.  If it swings for Raese, it's possible that Washington and perhaps even California are still winnable.

GOP Winners from the on-the-bubble Senate races - Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Mark Kirk in Colorado (if he doesn't get Frankened afterwards), Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Dino Rossi in Washington. That still leaves Raese as the swing.  There are also some really dark horse challenges from Fiorina in California and McMahon in Connecticut, but that requires more wave than likely exists.  Still, I'm hopeful.

In the House I'm predicting a gain of 61 seats.  My inclination is to go higher but I don't want to get caught up in any false optimism.  People like Cook and Sabato are predicting in the mid-50's.  That's a pretty big wave. Jim Geraghty is suggesting a net gain of 70 seats, and he names names. I hope he's right.  But I am trying to stay cautious in light of the lower numbers out there.

For governorships RealClearPolitics is predicting a GOP pickup of 6. Rasmussen's polling is here. I'm leaning towards 9 again.  This is an important cycle for those races and a big pick-up will be a big boost for the GOP.

Remember to vote tomorrow.  Every vote counts - or at least it should.