Donald Trump’s Sour Grapes

Donald Trump is to politics what the fox is to Aesop’s fables.

Here is what the fox did when he couldn’t get what he wanted:

“A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox’s mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.

The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.

Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.

“What a fool I am,” he said. “Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for.”

And off he walked very, very scornfully.”*

Now, along comes Donald Trump, who has seen the grapes of the American Presidency.

Trump can’t reach the grapes because of his flaws and errors. So, how does he respond? Walter Brasch explains:

“Donald Trump, losing to Hillary Clinton in every major national poll, long ago brilliantly figured out how to continue to rally his base. Instead of dealing with issues, he attacks Clinton, the mass media, and calls the election rigged…

… His hyperbole and paranoia extend beyond his political life. Trump previously declared that balloting for the Emmys is rigged, and that his show, “The Apprentice,” should have won an Emmy several times. The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, and its 20,000 members, disagreed with Trump’s opinion.
Trump’s tactic is resonating with his hard-core base that see conspiracy and deception in every corner — in workplaces, in government, and under their beds.”

Although the 2016 election hasn’t happened yet, it should be obvious how Trump and his supporters will respond if Trump loses. They won’t admit that Clinton won fairly, just as Al Gore and his supporters wouldn’t admit that George W. Bush won the 2000 election fairly.**


*The Fox & the Grapes, from Library of Congress website.

**The irony about the 2000 presidential election is that Albert Arnold Gore, Junior tried to win in Florida by violating the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to such cheating on Gore’s part, Bush was the one accused of winning unfairly. To this day, there are still people who insist that the 2000 election was stolen from Gore, when the truth is just the opposite. No amount of evidence will convince these people that they are mistaken, just as no amount of evidence will convince Birthers that Barack Obama really does have an authentic Hawaii birth certificate. Something about politics brings out the infantile in people.

To Donna Brazile: The "Doctor" is NOT In!
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners Oct 21, 2016
  • PBunyan

    “Trump can’t reach the grapes because of his flaws and errors.”

    You moronically state that like it’s a fact. Are you going to admit you’re stupid on November 9th after Trump waxes the floor with the rapist’s wife?

    Also you’re stupid if you think the election isn’t rigged. You seem to still believe the “polls” even after it’s been proven they’re rigged (a href=””>see here). And I suppose you don’t think that the media giving the rapist’s wife all the debate questions (yes, that’s been proven, too) is rigging the election either? Oh and I’m sure you’re moronicaly confident that the millions upon millions of illegally registered voters (dead people, people who moved, non-citizen residents [illegal or not]) aren’t going to cast any votes for the rapist’s wife. Or are they?

    The good news for patriotic Americans who don’t want to just be subjects of the global elitist oligarchy is that all the rigging in the world won’t overcome the votes of those like me who’d prefer to live in a Constitutional republic, governed by laws, not by lying, unaccountable politicians.

    It is people like you, Dodo David, supporters of the rapist’s wife, who will be telling us how sour those grapes were on the morning of the 9th of November.

    • pennywit

      Yes, President Romney conclusively demonstrated all the polls are rigged.

      • PBunyan

        There is a world, no, a universe of difference between Romney and Trump. Almost no one was enthusiastic about Romney. Romney did not draw crowds in the tens of thousands like Trump does everywhere he goes. Also Romney was just another Uniparty drone. The oligarchs didn’t care whether Romney or the SCOAMF won. Trump is the first major party candidate since 1984 that wasn’t picked by the oligarchy and the effect of that will be demonstrated in the actual voting which will closely resemble 1980 & 1984 results.

        • pennywit

          Yes, Trump is more charismatic than Romney was and he engenders more enthusiasm in this supporters. Fine.

          But I don’t really, really haven’t seen any credible evidence that the polls are fixed to the extent that you believe they are.

          • a poll of 1,000 Americans who have a home phone is meaningless … 40% of Americans don’t have a home phone …

          • pennywit

            A fair point. Do you know of a survey or group of surveys (w/o self-selection bias issues) that incorporates individuals w/o home phones? I do know for a fact that Gallup also reaches people with mobile phones.

          • Scalia

            The LA Times has a panel of about 3200 people who respond to weekly questions about the election. The methodology is explained via the links in the main article. It was rather accurate in 2012. I’m not saying it will be accurate this time; we’ll just have to see.

          • pennywit

            Indeed. In the 2016 cycle, this poll has rather consistently shown a Trump lead, but it’s generally been an outlier.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            The LA Times poll is a tracking poll, which measures changes in voter’s preference.

          • Scalia

            Yes, we know that. It’s all in the link that I embedded.

          • PBunyan

            You will see the very credible evidence on November 9th.

            Say, did you know that going in the Michigan primary last March there were three polls taken just days before the vote. They reported that the rapist’s wife was leading by 9 to 24 points. Bernie Sanders won the Michigan primary.

          • pennywit

            Incidentally, I’ve followed up above. As I understand it after some reading, modern polls do make an effort to ensure they reach cell lines as well as landlines when they dial out.

            As far as where things shake out on election day … let’s try this. Take a screenshot of the RCP electoral maps the weekend before the election, then compare them to the final vote. I really think the RCP average of polls will hold true.

          • pennywit

            One more note on this. Even if you think the polls are off, Trump, in general, has not campaigned well. He’s frequently ignored his professional campaign staffers’ advice, he hasn’t done a very good job raising money (compared to Clinton), and Trump has eschewed the ground game — that is, field offices to coordinate the get-out-the-vote effort — in favor of his rallies.

            Now, maybe Trump sees a path to victory through his unorthodox methods. Trump may even see a population or election dynamics that the political professionals don’t see. That is possible.

            But I don’t think it’s likely; I suspect that the “very credible evidence on November 9th” will demonstrate that despite the 2016 election’s unique dynamics, Clinton’s very conventional campaign will carry the day.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            All polls have an inherent bias as there is no perfect model.

            Some are known for having a right or left bias (see Rasmussen), but many are doing their best to be accurate as it is their business. After the election they will be doing marketing analysis for floor wax and being inaccurate is not going to look good in the sales brochure.

            This article does a great job of measuring accuracy and bias of almost all of the polls cited.


  • Hank_M

    “Instead of dealing with issues, he attacks Clinton, the mass media, and calls the election rigged…:

    What issues? All I’ve heard about lately is he used the word pussy 15 or so years ago in a private conversation, or that suddenly, after years in the public eye, women are accusing him of groping and worse. Really, what issues are being talked about by the mass media you are so enamored with? The same mass media that colludes with the dems? The same mass media that donates overwhelmingly to the dems? As for rigging, gee, I can recall the vapid Elizabeth Warren complaining about a rigged system. Bernie and Obama too. And didn’t Hillary also say essentially the same thing?

    We’d love to hear about the issues David. But your sainted nominee, along with the ever biased media don’t dare go there. If they did, Hillary’s campaign would be doomed.

  • pennywit

    Despite his rhetoric, I think Trump knows damn well that he’s going to lose this election. The “rigged” talk, IMO, is partly a way for Trump to try to preserve his brand, and partly a marketing buildup for his next venture.

  • Vagabond661

    Ever heard of Project Veritas?

    • Walter_Cronanty
    • Brucehenry
      • PBunyan

        All you anti-American Marxists think the truth is a joke.

        • Brucehenry

          Yeah the truth as defined by the “conservative treehouse.” Talk about anti-American.

          • PBunyan

            Give me just one specific example of the Conservative Treehouse ever posting anything that was not true.

          • Brucehenry

            Well in a few minutes I saw a claim that the Project Veritas “blockbuster” is being suppressed by the MSM despite it being discussed all over said MSM.

            Although for the life of me why anyone would believe any of this O’Keefe guy’s “blockbuster” exposes is beyond me. He was debunked on Shirley Sherrod. (Shown to be selectively edited to prove exactly the opposite of what he was claiming.) He was debunked on ACORN when he dressed up like a 1970s pimp. (Same editing trickery exposed.) He was debunked on NPR (Same deal.)

            This time he refuses to release the raw video which will undoubtedly prove him a con man once again, but is so fucking stupid he filed suit against the Hillary campaign, so if it makes it to court he’ll HAVE to produce it. Then again that will take a while and rubes like you, despite being fooled by this pimply charlatan over and over and over again, will believe him again.

          • on CNN, NBC and CBS, NYT or WaPo ???? no … not even close moron

          • Brucehenry
          • PBunyan

            So you got nothing. No surprise. You see, you may think that opinions of patriotic Americans are untruthful because they are diametrically opposed to your opinions but they’re are not. They are just different opinions. I asked if anything they posted was untrue and you came up with nothing.

          • Brucehenry

            Treehouse claims the Project Veritas videos are being suppressed and ignored by the MSM. They have asserted that claim as fact.

            But I have posted links from WaPo, CNN, and CBS discussing the O’Keefe videos at length. So they are not being suppressed or ignored. Here they are again



            This is not an opinion. This is a fact. But it’s not surprising you don’t recognize it. Wingnuts can’t seem to tell which is which.

          • PBunyan

            It is a fact. A few obscure web links mean nothing. How much air time did the broadcast networks give the story?

            Had it been the opposite, had Trump been doing this to the rapist’s wife, it would have been the lead story every nite for weeks or months and they would have spent most of their time on every aspect of the story. Instead they just buried it, or if they reported on it at all their sole intent was to discredit it.

          • Brucehenry

            Did you click on the links, or did you just squeeze your eyes shut even harder, stick your fingers in your ears more firmly, and whine louder about the MSM ignoring your pimply hero?

          • Hank_M

            “[O’Keefe] was debunked on Shirley Sherrod.”

            I thought O’Keefe had nothing to do with the Sherrod video. So how was he debunked?

            As to the lastest video, what in the world could be in an un-edited version to make the Creamer or Foval comments acceptable?

            And I have to admit, this critique of the video’s being edited is laughable. That’s exactly what the so-called MSM does daily with damn near every video they broadcast. But suddenly, when directed against the left it’s a convenient excuse to disregard?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes my mistake, it was Breitbart who humiliated himself with a selectively edited video that actually, in its raw form, demonstrated the opposite of what it was intended to “prove.” But O’Keefe is a Breitbart protege and apparently learned at the great man’s knee.

          • Your mistake is that you keep coming back…

      • Vagabond661

        Good comeback! took you awhile to thunk that up!

        • Brucehenry

          It did? Gee I thought I typed that answer pretty quick after seeing your comment. At least according to the time stamp I did.

          • Vagabond661

            Well 3 hours but who’s counting?

          • Brucehenry

            I was still at work at 1;00 today, didn’t see it until about 3 when I got home.

          • Vagabond661

            you’re excused then.

          • More like dismissed, out of hand.

      • You are a joke, and a bad one at that.

  • Par4Course

    David, you’re just pissed that Trump hasn’t conceded the election and dropped out. You want to call Trump a sore loser when he hasn’t yet lost. Al Gore didn’t give up to Bush until he lost 6-3 in the Supreme Court in early December 2000. Yet the media complain because Trump won’t either concede based on the polls, a few of which are within the margin of error, or agree that he’ll accept the results of the election that hasn’t been held yet. Frankly, I’m more worried that, if Trump wins, Obama will refuse to vacate the White House “for the good of the country.”

    • Scalia

      7-2 & 5-4


      • Par4Course

        I stand corrected. Thanks.

      • pennywit

        I still think SCOTUS ought to have told the House of Representatives to sort the mess out. Apart from the plausible constitutional argument that it is the role of the electors, meeting in each individual state, to vote on the president, and the role of the House to certify electoral votes and do the deed itself if there is no clear majority, I really think the high court expended a shit-ton of political capital on Bush v. Gore.

        And I say this with the full knowledge that Bush would have won if the vote went to the House.

        • Scalia

          Bush won anyway under most recount scenarios. In fact, Bush would have won by a greater margin using Gore’s preferred method.

          I am most uncomfortable with the SCOTUS jumping in to interpret state law. In this case, there was a clear statutory deadline and a substantial majority of the court (7-2) saw an equally clear violation of Equal Protection. The court correctly saw that a recount would have extended far, far beyond the statutory deadline. I can see why they came to the decision to stop the recount.

          • pennywit

            Yeah, I know/see all that. Doesn’t mean I like it, though. Bush would have lost if Gore hadn’t sucked as a campaigner.

            (PS. Them’s sour grapes for ya).

    • Brucehenry

      Gore also didn’t claim, repeatedly, in the months and weeks leading up to the election, that the vote was “gonna be rigged.”

      No one expected what happened in FL, and neither Gore nor his campaign, as I recall, ever made or encouraged the wild claims made by some of his more angry and enthusiastic supporters, but simply asked for repeated recounts. When the Supreme Court ruled the recounts must stop, Gore offered a very gracious and patriotic concession and even presided, a few days later, over the Electoral College making his defeat official.

      You never saw Al Gore going around the country bitching about a stolen election after the official result — do you think Trump will show the same restraint if he loses?

      • Par4Course

        Nixon conceded to Kennedy, even though It’s certain that many fraudulent votes were cast, especially in places like Chicago. Whatever AlGore did, many Democrats proclaims Bush’s election was illegitimate even though every study showed that a full recount in Florida would not have changed the outcome. Trump will not go away quietly now or after the election.

        • Brucehenry

          Like I said, Trump doesn’t have the respect or the humility to accept the judgment of the voters.

          I have seen it alleged many times that “it is certain that many fraudulent votes were cast” in the 1960 election, and it might even be true, but Nixon, a paranoid, insecure man who hated to lose, had enough patriotism and love for country not to contest the election without being able to prove the allegations, fearing he would hurt the country that he, with all his faults, sincerely loved.

          Many Democrats indeed clung to the belief that Gore should have won, but Gore himself accepted the decision of the Court that his quest must end, and had enough patriotism and love for country to “go away quietly” when the time came.

          You are right that Trump does NOT have those qualities and will NOT go away quietly, and he doesn’t give two shits that it will hurt the country.

          PS you are wrong that “every study” showed what you say “every study” showed. Some did but some didn’t.

      • Vagabond661

        It took SCOTUS to stop Gore…

        • Brucehenry

          Again, Gore didn’t spend weeks or months alleging, for example, that George Bush’s brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, was going to steal the election from him. And while it is true that many Democratic partisans made some pretty damning allegations about Jeb, and Katherine Harris, Gore himself never did, nor did his campaign.

          The Florida 2000 situation was unprecedented, and was handled pretty responsibly by both sides. And when SCOTUS ruled against Gore, he conceded and never personally claimed, to my knowledge, that the election had been “stolen.” I don’t think Trump will be nearly as circumspect as Al Gore was — he’s not as good a human being or as good a citizen as Gore.

          • jim_m

            Had Gorethought it would have helped he would have. As it was he had a battalion of lawyers predeployed in Florida to contest the results. It really isn’t that different.

          • Commander_Chico

            If they do to Trump like they did to Gore, I hope Trump fights back.

            Kerry got shafted in Ohio in 2004, too:

            Time for this shit to have a cost in blood – no matter who does it.

          • Brucehenry

            Spoken like a true Trumpkin. WE WANT CHAOS DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!

          • Commander_Chico

            You can live on your knees, or die on your feet. Corruption of the elections is oligarchical government.

          • Why thank you for the view from Spain.

      • Commander_Chico

        Gore should have called the election rigged – they were purging the Florida voter rolls of black voters before the election.

        • And they purged the military absentee ballots after the election. Oh, wait – that was the Gore lawyers so it’s all good…

          Short memory, much?

          • Commander_Chico

            We’ll never know, will we? The recount was stopped by the Supreme Court.

          • Some didn’t have ‘valid’ postmarks. After all, what’s this cancellation stamp that was a ship with USS something under it?

          • Commander_Chico

            There are contesting versions of what happened. I am sure the Democrats overreached on some ballots, just as some ballots were in fact invalid. It is a fact you still had to be registered to vote to cast an absentee ballot. Some of the military absentee voters may have been purged by the Floria Sec. of State – who was also on Bush’s campaign.

            The truth is somewhere in the middle.

            But the issue of which ballots were valid was never settled because the Supreme Court stopped the count.

    • pennywit

      If the election comes down to a few thousand butterly ballots in Florida, then 1) we should officially expel Florida from the United States until it gets its act together, and 2) Donald Trump can, and should, call for a recount. But if come Nov. 9, Hillary Clinton has 300 or more votes in the electoral college, then, yes, Trump needs to step aside.

  • Retired military

    /yawn yet another trump bashing thread by David.

    • as David said “Something about politics brings out the infantile in people.” while looking in the mirror I assume …

  • Something about politics brings out the infantile in people. … this article being a case in point …

  • labar

    I can’t believe the bs in this article. Go take a nap and see if you can wake up in a better mood.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    “Instead of dealing with issues, he attacks Clinton, the mass media, and calls the election rigged…”

    Just because he’s obnoxious doesn’t mean he’s wrong:

    “Trump’s Right – The System Is Rigged And We Don’t Owe It Our Default Acceptance”–the-system-is-rigged-and-we-dont-owe-it-our-default-acceptance-n2235980

  • Mary Gehman

    ‘Sour Grapes’??? More like ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ in my opinion. And grapes, sour or not, make wine. I choose to drink the wine and NOT the koolaid.

    • He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
      He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword

      • Mary Gehman

        Glory, glory hallelujah…can I get an ‘Amen’?!?!?!

  • Wild_Willie

    This comment is to Kevin:

    As you know Kevin, I have been around Wizbang for many years. Although the democratic policy lines make me hold my nose, I can deal with an honest debate. Now you put an author on your site the CONSTANTLY posts immature, factless posts to settle scores as an elementary student might do. You have demonstrated to me over the years you don’t settle for that kind of behavior. Please correct David by admonishing him or banning him. This blog is so much bigger and better then what he posts. Thanks. ww

  • LiberalNightmare

    “They won’t admit that Clinton won fairly”

    Are you kidding me? She didn’t even win the democratic nomination fairly.

    High ranking democrats have been caught helping her to cheat the democratic nomination process, to incite violence at Trump rallies, and scheming to violate FEC regulations.

    That just the last few weeks,

    She hasn’t even gotten to the election yet, and shes cheated her ass off.

  • jaanu roy

    Wow, absolutely fantastic blog. I am very glad to have such useful information. Thanks. For more information visit latest technology news