Liberty University students protest association with Trump

There are 33 Comments

Jim's picture

In the months since Jerry Falwell Jr. endorsed him, Donald Trump has been inexorably associated with Liberty University. We are Liberty students who are disappointed with President Falwell’s endorsement and are tired of being associated with one of the worst presidential candidates in American history. Donald Trump does not represent our values and we want nothing to do with him.

A majority of Liberty students, faculty, and staff feel as we do. Donald Trump received a pitiful 90 votes from Liberty students in Virginia’s primary election, a colossal rejection of his campaign. Nevertheless, President Falwell eagerly uses his national platform to advocate for Donald Trump. While he occasionally clarifies that supporting Trump is not the official position of Liberty University, he knows it is his title of president of the largest Christian university in the world that gives him political credentials.

Associating any politician with Christianity is damaging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But Donald Trump is not just any politician. He has made his name by maligning others and bragging about his sins. Not only is Donald Trump a bad candidate for president, he is actively promoting the very things that we as Christians ought to oppose.

A recently uncovered tape revealed his comments bragging about sexually assaulting women. Any faculty or staff member at Liberty would be terminated for such comments, and yet when Donald Trump makes them, President Falwell rushes eagerly to his defense – taking the name “Liberty University” with him. “We’re all sinners,” Falwell told the media, as if sexual assault is a shoulder-shrugging issue rather than an atrocity which plagues college campuses across America, including our own.

It is not enough to criticize these kinds of comments. We must make clear to the world that while everyone is a sinner and everyone can be forgiven, a man who constantly and proudly speaks evil does not deserve our support for the nation’s highest office.

Jesus tells a story in the Bible about a man who tries to remove a speck of dust from his brother’s eye, while he has a log stuck in his own. “You hypocrite,” Jesus says, “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

We Liberty students are often told to support Donald Trump because the other leading candidate is a bad option. Perhaps this is true. But the only candidate who is directly associated with Liberty University is Donald Trump.

Because our president has led the world to believe that Liberty University supports Donald Trump, we students must take it upon ourselves to make clear that Donald Trump is absolutely opposed to what we believe, and does not have our support.

We are not proclaiming our opposition to Donald Trump out of bitterness, but out of a desire to regain the integrity of our school. While our president Jerry Falwell Jr. tours the country championing the log in his eye, we want the world to know how many students oppose him. We don’t want to champion Donald Trump; we want only to be champions for Christ.

Mark_Smith's picture

will Hillary also have the Senate... Will she also have the House?

 

Imagine Hillary with unchecked power!

Bert Perry's picture

Now hopefully this gets the attention of the trustees.  Useful idiots Trump enablers need to be examined to see whether they are indeed worth keeping in their offices.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Ron Bean's picture

Here's Falwell Jr.'s response:

Jerry Falwell Jr.'s response:

"I am proud of these few students for speaking their minds but I’m afraid the statement is incoherent and false. I am not ‘touring the country’ or associating Liberty University with any candidate. I am only fulfilling my obligation as a citizen to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ by expressing my personal opinion about who I believe is best suited to lead our nation in a time of crisis. This student statement seems to ignore the teachings of Jesus not to judge others but they are young and still learning."

Can you say "condescension"? I knew you could. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

josh p's picture

That is an absurd response. Whatever happened to liberty of conscience?

TylerR's picture

Editor

Falwell wrote:

This student statement seems to ignore the teachings of Jesus not to judge others but they are young and still learning

The man is truly behaving like a complete fool. His statement is idiotic and Biblically illiterate. I especially appreciate his post-modern interpretation of Matt 7:1.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Joeb's picture

As Bert would look at things logically no one in their right mind would pick Trump but it happened.  There in lies the problem.  Republicans are not thinking logically and using the common sense the good Lord gave us.  Where was Fawell Jr educated. If at Liberty it sure reflects badly of the school.  

Bert are you in the market to run a Christian college.  You could manage Liberty better than Fawell Jr with your hands tied behind your back and with a pair of cement shoes on and doing it from the bottom of Lake Ontario.  

Wow what idiots.  

Bert Perry's picture

Joe, I'm flattered, but lacking an earned doctorate, I don't think there's much of a chance of that for me.  Maybe with God's blessing I can influence others a little bit towards real education.  

Besides, logic doesn't answer everything--it only works on what you start with, the premises.  But in this case, those premises are those used by Jerry Falwell when he founded Liberty--that character counts, and the leader represents his institution.  Obviously in this case, I believe the younger Falwell is not applying these premises in a consistent manner, and in doing so, he nudged the nomination to an utterly corrupt man.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dmyers's picture

Uh, folks, did any of you notice the inconvenient fact that WaPo buried in its delighted report?  The petition was signed by about 1,300 students, alumni, and staff.  No breakdown of students vs. alumni, so it may be more alumni than students.  Regardless, it's a ridiculously small minority, in light of Liberty's current enrollment of over 15,000 residential students and over 94,000 online students, plus alumni in the six figures.  This is a man bites dog story and some of you are chortling over it.  Given that the petition itself (falsely) claims to be the majority view, it's not worth much.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I don't care about the petition. I care about Falwell's moronic comments.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Dmyers, keep in mind that the petition has gotten 1300 signers since Wednesday in a community where 85% of particpants really don't have contact with one another except through their professors.  It is certainly too quickly to have gotten much traction among the alumni, so I'm guessing most of those signers are among the on campus students.  It's not as if you can "send to all" when you're off campus or alumni, after all.

If that logic holds, we're talking about 9% of on campus students signed it within a day, which is actually really good in terms of response.

Plus, what Tyler notes.  They've pushed the president of the U. to use some really horrendous rhetoric in defense of his frankly indefensible positions.  What ever happened to "character matters" and all that?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dmyers's picture

A further response from Falwell:  “The group of students now speaking out against Trump represents a very small percentage of the Liberty student body of 15,000 resident students and 90,000 online students. The group (led by a never Trump activist, I am told) claims to have between 200 and 1200 signatures on a petition but admits that many of these signatories are not Liberty students.”

So the 9% calculation is completely wrong for more reasons than that the 1,300 number includes an undisclosed number of alumni.  Still no explanation for why the petitioners blatantly lied about being in the majority.

How much of this willingness here to uncritically accept the WaPo article and the squishy-thinking petition stems from long-standing personal opposition to Liberty and Jerry Falwell and, by association, the current Falwell?

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

You asked:

How much of this willingness here to uncritically accept the WaPo article and the squishy-thinking petition stems from long-standing personal opposition to Liberty and Jerry Falwell and, by association, the current Falwell?

I never thought of Liberty at all until Falwell endorsed Trump. Then I began to suspect the man was a fool. The Playboy picture, and his recent comments have confirmed these suspicions. Falwell is either (a) a pragmatist or (b) a fool or (c) both. I have no respect for him.  

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

dmyers's picture

Fair enough.  Not familiar with the Playboy picture.  I didn't agree with Falwell's early endorsement of Trump, particularly when we had better candidates available in the primary, and I did not support Trump in the primary and didn't want him at all.  But now that Trump is the only non-symbolic option to Hillary (largely due to the complete ineptitude of the Republican party and the incumbent Republicans in Congress), it is not mere pragmatism (i.e., in the sense of a violation of biblical principles or ends justify the means, which is how I assume you're using the term) to vote for him rather than to vote for Hillary or to not vote (which includes a vote for any other candidate at this point).  You're pretty free with the use of the word fool to describe a brother in Christ with whose personal political decision you disagree.  I strongly disagree with what I assume is your decision as a Christian not to vote for Trump, and I'd say you're naive or unwise in the circumstances, but I wouldn't call you a fool.

TylerR's picture

Editor

My description of Falwell as a "fool" has nothing to do with how he intends to vote. It has to do with the fact that he is President of the largest Christian university in the world, and yet (a) he continues to publicly and enthusiastically support Trump, and (b) his response to the petition was Biblically illiterate. 

Consider his words:

When asked about mounting allegations that Trump groped women, Falwell told CNN’s Erin Burnett he feels Trump has changed in the past five years and so those accusations didn't worry him.

"I think he's been through a change in the last four or five years," Falwell said. "I think he's been influenced strongly by his children, by his grandchildren. And I don't think he's the man he used to be."

.............

Burnett then asked Falwell whether Trump sexually assaulting women, if the allegations were true, was something Falwell could forgive and if Falwell could continue to support him. Falwell said that was not his place.

"It is not up to me to forgive anybody," Falwell said. "I'm not, I'm not Jesus Christ. It is only Jesus who can forgive. And he can forgive anybody. All of us, we're all redeemable. And like I said, Jesus was accused of being a friend of sinners when he was here on Earth. And it is not up to us to forgive. It is up to us to decide who would be the best president of the United States, who would take the right position on the issues to make America great again."

Falwell has acted foolishly. He has a position of great visibility. He has a name which is recognized. He has a platform which means something. He has used that name, that platform and that position to lend enthusiastic support to a man whose life and fruit are completely opposed to everything the Gospel is designed to save sinners from. Yes, Falwell is a fool.  

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Dmyers, please forgive me, but I'm not going to accept Jerry Falwell Jr.'s comments on the petition at face value without a source.  Sorry.  Not as self-serving as his statements are.  He needs to grow up and realize that, given limited opportunities for communication, 1300 signatures in a day is pretty good.  There are presumably some non-campus students, but the fact of the matter is that outside of parents, the email addresses of alumni and off campus students are generally not known to students.  It might not be 9%, but it's going to be close.  

 Moreover, the majority of on campus Liberty students DID support someone besides the Combover; 77% of the votes cast were for Rubio and Cruz, vs. only 7-8% for Trump.  

So the statements by Falwell are generally speaking false, and those of the students are generally speaking true.  Oh, and that Playboy Picture?  Linked at the Babylon Bee, of course.  Given that Falwell appears to be unaware that character matters (as his father spins in his grave) and that leadership represents the institution, I've got to say that a significant portion of Liberty students have better sense than the university president.

The big thing I regret here is that these students got their petition together now, as opposed to this spring when it might have done some good.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dmyers's picture

My thoughts on Trump are better encapsulated in this piece -- http://amgreatness.com/2016/10/08/lewdness-donald-trump/ -- and in Eric Metaxis's piece in the Wall Street Journal, 10/12/16.  (I'll quote Metaxis's piece below.)  

Bert:  Your speculation doesn't explain the false claim to represent a majority, and the petition is posted and widely available, not being circulated one by one.  The fact that a majority didn't support Trump months ago when he was one of a dozen choices doesn't say anything about what the numbers would be today given the binary choice between Trump and Hillary.  I think you know pretty accurately what those numbers would be.  As for the Playboy photo, the Babylon Bee piece was satirizing exactly your reaction.

Here's what Metaxis wrote:

What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?
It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?
If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.
 

 

dmyers's picture

Is here:  http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=209786

I am proud of these few students for speaking their minds.  It is a testament to the fact that Liberty University promotes the free expression of ideas unlike many major universities where political correctness prevents conservative students from speaking out.  However, I am afraid the statement is false in several respects.  First, the statement claims that a “majority” of Liberty faculty, staff and students are not supporting Donald Trump. It is true that Donald Trump lost in the Virginia primary at Liberty’s precinct when there were many Republican candidates still in the race but, when Mike Pence spoke to many thousands of students at Liberty yesterday, he was applauded when he spoke of the importance of supporting Donald Trump for president.  In fact, he received five standing ovations during his speech.  The group of students now speaking out against Trump represents a very small percentage of the Liberty student body of 15,000 resident students and 90,000 online students.  The group (led by a never Trump activist, I am told) claims to have between 200 and 1200 signatures on a petition but admits that many of these signatories are not Liberty students.  The student statement also falsely claims that I am “touring the country” and associating Liberty University with Trump. The fact is I traveled with the Trump campaign only one weekend in January and I always make it clear to the media that my endorsement of Trump is my personal endorsement only and that I am not speaking for Liberty University, its students, faculty or staff.  I am only fulfilling my obligation as a citizen to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ by expressing my personal opinion about who I believe is best suited to lead our nation in a time of crisis.

 

Joel Shaffer's picture

dmyers wrote:

My thoughts on Trump are better encapsulated in this piece -- http://amgreatness.com/2016/10/08/lewdness-donald-trump/ -- and in Eric Metaxis's piece in the Wall Street Journal, 10/12/16.  (I'll quote Metaxis's piece below.)  

Bert:  Your speculation doesn't explain the false claim to represent a majority, and the petition is posted and widely available, not being circulated one by one.  The fact that a majority didn't support Trump months ago when he was one of a dozen choices doesn't say anything about what the numbers would be today given the binary choice between Trump and Hillary.  I think you know pretty accurately what those numbers would be.  As for the Playboy photo, the Babylon Bee piece was satirizing exactly your reaction.

Here's what Metaxis wrote:

What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?
It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?
If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.
 

 

 

A very thoughtful response to Metaxis.   http://skyejethani.com/why-im-not-voting/    

"Finally, let me address the knock out punch at the end of Eric Metaxas’ column against Christians like me who plan to withhold their vote for president. He writes:

“For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.”

Rhetoric like this is why some Christians have come to believe that casting a ballot on Election Day is the highest expression of their Christian faith, and why they carry such anxiety about the outcome. To believe their fate or that of the world hangs in the balance reveals how distorted our vision of God’s sovereignty really is. And to say that voting for Trump isn’t really voting for Trump requires a looseness with logic and language on par with Bill Clinton asking what the definition of the word “is” is.

On one point, however, I do agree with Mr. Metaxas—we are responsible to God for our decision, but our guilt or innocence will not be limited to what we do on November 8.

Metaxas ignores the fact that Mr. Trump’s odious character was well known before the release of the horrific Access Hollywood hot mic recording on October 7. It was well documented before he accepted the nomination of the Republican Party in July, and it was on full display during the primaries when Trump could have been eliminated from consideration. Donald Trump’s name did not magically appear on the ballot. People put it there—including a disturbing number of Christians who voted for him in the primaries.

What’s most troubling is not Donald Trump’s odious character, but what his nomination says about ours. And for that God will not hold us guiltless.

Evangelical leaders who have enthusiastically supported Trump for many months, like Eric Metaxas, need to take responsibility for creating a climate of paranoia among Christians that allowed Trump’s candidacy to be deemed acceptable in the first place. Having freed this beast from the abyss, they are now asking the rest of us to join them on its back because they think the other beast is worse. Good luck, Mr. Metaxas, but I’m staying with the Lamb."

Bert Perry's picture

Dmyers, I'm somewhat troubled by your uncritical view of Falwell's comments--he's more or less coming out with the long knives and such at his own students while ignoring the fact that even in the computer age, getting over 1000 signatures on a student organized petition in a day is a big deal.  

Regarding whether the claim to be a majority is true, I simply don't agree that Falwell's claim is meaningful.  Sure, a lot of people will hold their noses and vote against Hilliary if the election is even close, but does that really constitute majority support for the Combover?  I'd argue no--the STRONG rejection of him in the primaries is far more indicative.  Yes, there are some who would applaud Mike Pence.....but again, come election time, they will be holding their noses; their votes will not be enthusiastic on the top of the ballot.

And for what it's worth, while I'm likely to be holding my nose, too, I half wonder if Trump is a Clinton dirty trick that will make Watergate pale in comparison.  Trump's been pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-corporate welfare, pro-big government, and a friend of the Clintons for going on 30 years.  Billary were at his wedding reception; the Trumps were at Chelsea's.  Bill and Donald have both had rides on the Lolita Express.  Do.The.Math.  We need to pray for repentance on both their parts.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Darrell Post's picture

I have openly wondered if Trump was a Clinton plant all along. I was never for him, and when I ran across folks who were for him during the primaries, I tried to talk them out of it. None of them listened. I wonder if they regret their decision now. Polling data from back in February shows that other candidates not named Trump were soundly beating Hillary in all key battleground states. Trump wasn't. But they wanted him anyway. But it should have been obvious to all that Trump was a train wreck waiting to happen. Never before in the history of the Republican Party has there been a successful nominee who never before held an office in the area of public service.

TylerR's picture

Editor

This is the man the majority of registered Republican voters wanted as their nominee. In primary after primary, they chose this man over better-qualified candidates. People keep wondering aloud at my office, "how did we end up with these two choices?" The answer is simple - the majority of voters in the two political parties chose these two candidates. It reflects a fundamental infantilization and immaturity of American culture. These are the candidates the majority of the registered votes want to represent them.

The reminder that "our country is in heaven" from Phil 3:20 has never sounded so sweet.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Darrell Post's picture

TylerR, actually it is more accurate to say that the majority of those voting in the GOP primaries preferred some other nominee. The problem was there were 17 candidates running. In almost every state Trump got less than 50%, meaning most voters wanted someone else. But Trump was the 'different' sort of candidate and didn't have anyone like him to compete with. The other main candidates were too much alike and splintered the vote. So Trump won many of the early states getting around 30% of the vote. Furthermore, it wasn't always 'registered Republicans' voting. Many states have open voting, so you can walk in, request either party ballot and vote.

 

Joeb's picture

Darrell in some states half or more of the evangelicals went for Trump ie SC.  The only states where they went for Cruz were Iowa and Texas.  Both centers of a lot wackadoodle churches of all types.  You know ones who fly the confederate flag and dance with snakes or want to start a Militia to take over the government and usher in the coming Christ with Papa Cruz.  Heck I liked Cruz because he would have dealt with the money, but he sorely disappointed me with his ground game.  

Republicans picked Trump because they want some one who would get the business of Government done. Not I hate Obama over and over again and let's make the whole government Christian and America just like the Duggers the all American family.   Let's just go in and with a stroke of a pen over turn gay marriage and Roe vs Wade. That's why they picked dumb dumb. 

Ron Bean's picture

I think we may be in this situation because the majority of the electorate are uninformed and/or  undereducated. Some of them are angry and others are blindly loyal.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Darrell Post's picture

Here is the %Trump received in the early states when there was still a large number of candidates:

IA: 24%

NH: 35%

SC: 33%

NV: 46%

AL: 43%

AK: 34%

AR: 33%

GA: 39%

MA: 49%

MN: 21%

OK: 28%

TN: 39%

TX: 27%

VT: 33%

VA: 35%

Many candidates dropped out by this point, but even with the smaller pool, Trump stiil struggled to reach 50%:

KS: 23%

KY: 36%

LA: 41%

ME: 33%

PR: 13%

HI: 43%

ID: 28%

MI: 37%

MS: 47%

VI: 6%

DC: 14%

WY: 7%

And even after these states, on March 15 it was down to just 4 candidates, but Trump still didn't reach 50%:

FL: 46%

IL: 39%

MO: 41%

NC: 40%

OH: 36%

then it dropped to just Trump, Cruz and Kasich:

AZ: 46%

UT: 14%

WI: 35%

NY: 59%

Finally Trump gets over 50%, in his home state of NY. And here is when the floodgates finally opened as voters felt the pressure to get behind the eventual nominee. But you can see how in the first 32 states, Trump did not get 50% of the vote in a single state. The majority of voters wanted someone else.

 

Darrell Post's picture

Ron, again it wasn't the majority in the first 32 states. The majority said, no thanks, we want someone who has actually held elected office.

Ron Bean's picture

Darrell Post wrote:

Ron, again it wasn't the majority in the first 32 states. The majority said, no thanks, we want someone who has actually held elected office.

 

That is a great point. Early on the GOP brain trust was backing candidates like Bush who didn't appeal to the angry and conservative base while spurning conservative candidates like Cruz and Rubio. The party lost control of the process and left us with this.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Darrell Post's picture

"Early on the GOP brain trust was backing candidates like Bush who didn't appeal to the angry and conservative base while spurning conservative candidates like Cruz and Rubio. The party lost control of the process and left us with this."

Exactly right. Bush spent 150 million dollars getting a) 4 delegates, and b) taking down Cruz and Rubio. It left Trump more or less isolated, and a media thrilled to push him forward.

Pages