Savage: Trump is the ‘Winston Churchill of Our Time’

No, that headline is not a joke. Michael Savage actually said, out loud on the radio, that Donald Trump is the “Winston Churchill of our time.” Oh, and he also said that Trump is going to win the Latino vote in the election. Seriously. I’m not kidding.

One of the nation’s top radio talk-show hosts, Michael Savage of “The Savage Nation,” enthusiastically threw his considerable influence behind GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump Wednesday, declaring: “I’m for Trump. Point-blank. Best choice we have.”

Savage also called him the “Winston Churchill of our time.”

In his interview with Trump, Savage said he believes Hispanics in the U.S. legally will vote for Trump.

“They of all people know how hard it is to make a buck, and they want a businessman to run the country so they can hold on to what they make,” he said. “They don’t want a socialist stealing their money.”

Savage noted that a Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday showed Trump leading the GOP field among Hispanics. According to the poll, 34 percent of self-identified Hispanic respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Trump.

“It confirms exactly what I suspected,” Savage said.

No it doesn’t. That polling question only asked whether they had a favorable opinion of Trump, not whether they would vote for him. And 57% of the Hispanic voters polled disapproved of him. And even by that measure, Hispanic voters are much more favorable toward Hillary Clinton, at 67%. And in the generic presidential vote, the Democratic candidate leads the Republican candidate 57-30%. And when the questions got more specific, the numbers were even worse for Trump.

In a three-way contest between Clinton, Bush and Trump, Clinton wins by a wide margin with Hispanics (46/22/26, respectively). When they ask specifically who they would vote for in a race between Clinton and Trump, Clinton wins by a more than 2-1 margin (61-28). If it’s Sanders v Trump, he does only slightly better (61-33). So no, this poll does not in any way whatsoever suggest that Trump is going to win the Hispanic vote. Aliens will visit the planet accompanied by flying pigs to watch the Cleveland Browns win the Super Bowl before that happens.

"They're still trying to stop all their male employees from harassing and molesting female employees ..."

Fox News Allows Judge Jeanine to ..."
"I think her title would be "constantly constipated-looking hack.""

Fox News Allows Judge Jeanine to ..."
"It's as if millions of ethics regulations all cried out at once."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"King David got his Hittite buddy's wife pregnant and then sent him out to be ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StevoR

    LOL. No. Fuck no! Really? Nope.

  • fifthdentist

    Maybe Trump is Churchill in the latter’s Gallipoli period.

  • StevoR

    Churchill = Trump. (shakes head) Dafuck?! No.

  • sugarfrosted

    To be fair, Trump does have the hating brown people down and struggling hairline… and literally nothing else.

  • zenlike

    Churchill was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and jumped parties multiple times to remain in power. He was also conservative and anti-socialist. Maybe the comparison is not that far off…

  • busterggi

    Look, when Savage says ‘legal Hispanic voters’ he means the half dozen or so Hispanics that aren’t related to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, the rest are all illegal in Rethug view.

  • eric

    Trump 2015 does have the all the charisma, leadership, and intellectual power of Churchill 2015.

  • dingojack

    So ‘One of the nation’s top radio talk-show hosts’ (on the planet Zglarb, presumably), Michael Weiner thinks Bum-TRUMPet is ‘a modern-day Winnie’, eh?

    It’s gotta be tough for the Taxidermy Squirrel stapled to the Donster’s scalp (the thinking part of the partnership) when such an apparently important radio talk-show host (which is kind of like being named ‘the most popular pedo in cell-block H’ as far as importance and influence is concerned) thinks you’re a pill-popping drunk with absolutely no feel for global military strategy…

    Almost makes me weep… (not)


  • Modusoperandi

    To be fair, Churchill did get Germany to build a wall between itself and England…

  • moarscienceplz

    “They of all people know how hard it is to make a buck, and they want a businessman to run the country so they can hold on to what they make,” he said. “They don’t want a socialist stealing their money.”

    Yeah! If they go to work for businessmen like this they sure won’t have any worries about the government stealing their money!

  • martinc

    Churchill had a hair loss problem.

  • richardelguru

    So Trump drinks too much?

  • ArtK

    Well, he is. Except for the bit about being intelligent, well spoken, and a great leader.

  • Sastra

    I once read a book listing horrible decisions in history and Churchill was on at least 2 of them. Now, whenever I read that someone’s “another Churchill” I feel a bit like I feel when someone glowingly compares someone to Mother Theresa. That’s probably not the example you would use if you dug into the background some more.

  • scienceavenger

    He might as well have said that Trump is the Jameis Winston of our time. He’s just randomly stringing words together.

  • colnago80

    Re richardelguru @ #12

    Actually, Trump is a teetotaler.

  • colnago80

    I haven’t read the book but I suspect that one of those decisions was the Gallipoli campaign. Actually, the strategic thinking behind the campaign was quite sound IMHO. The bad decision was putting an incompetent like General Ian Hamilton in charge.

  • theschwa

    Hispanics are well known for their love of Winston Churchill. So if Trump IS the next Churchill, of COURSE they will vote for him!

  • Synfandel

    Modusoperandi @9:

    To be fair, Churchill did get Germany to build a wall between itself and England…

    But did he get the Mexicans to pay for it?

  • Nick Gotts

    There’s plenty to be said against Churchill, politically, militarily and morally. But the comparison with Trump is so ludicrous I’m simply lost for a parallel. Comparing a kazoo with a symphony orchestra maybe? Jeffrey Archer with George Eliot? Jack Vetriano with Vincent Van Gogh? None of them seem adequate.

  • colnago80

    Re Scienceavenger@ #15

    Jameis Winston may actually turn out to be a good NFL quarterback, unlike Tim Tebow. I have never seen him play but have read some scouting reports that contrast him with Marcus Mariota who was picked second in the NFL draft. It remains to be seen if he continues to be a bad actor in his private life.

  • felidae

    Trump supporters are proving Churchill was right when he said: “The most persuasive argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”

  • democommie

    I think Churchill WAS a racist, but I’m not sure if he and Trump both had syphilis.

  • amadan


    Actually, the strategic thinking behind the campaign was quite sound IMHO. The bad decision was putting an incompetent like General Ian Hamilton in charge.

    [Apologies: off-topic rant coming in 1…. 2….]

    Dafuq??? The “strategic thinking” was that ‘Johnny Turk’, when confronted by the mechanised imperial grandeur of the Empah, woud roll over and blithely accept a foreign imperial power taking control of Istanbul, setting up a Russian satrapy and doing what his Christian ‘Betters’ told him was good enough for him! And this just [something like] 2 years after the Young Turks had seized power and fired up a republican nationalist movement that was going to define Turkish nationality for the 20th century?

    Churchill was delusional. That the execution of his daft policy failed was due as much to the courage of Turkish soldiers and their German officers (in US terms, ‘military advisers’) as to the incompetence of the Allies.

    In fairness, the Allied retreat strategic withdrawal from Gallipoli was a military masterpiece, thankfully for the unfortunate foot-soldiers involved.

  • colnago80

    Re amadan @ #24

    Excuse me, the landing at Sulva Bay caught the Turks with their pants down. There wasn’t a Turkish soldier within 100 miles. Hamilton’s mistake was failure to occupy the heights above the Bay on day 1. As I recall, on day 2, a couple of platoons did scale the heights and found no opposition.

    The object of the exercise was to force Turkey out of the war. And by the way, no Russian troops were involved, the Russians had all they could handle in Eastern Europe. Forcing Turkey out of the war would open the Dardanelles to British shipping through which they could safely send supplies to the Russian army. The Brusilov offensive of 1916, which threatened to overrun Austria-Hungary, was not stopped by the combined Austrian/German defense, it was stopped by the Russians running out of ammunition which their factories were inadequate to supply in sufficient quantities. There was nothing Britain and France could do to succor their Russian ally as the failure of the 1915 Dardanelles campaign left the narrows closed to their shipping.

    A counterfactual history: Had Turkey been knocked out of the war in 1915, the Dardanelles would have been open to British and French shipping which could then send munitions to Russia. With adequate ammunition, the Brusilov offensive would have kept going, forcing the German High Command to transfer troops from the Western Front to confront the Russians, thus weakening their defensive line against the Somme Offensive and quite possibly causing the Verdun attack to be cancelled. Thus there is a chance that the war could have been ended in 1916 as the German/Austrian forces would have been hard put to fight powerful enemies on two fronts.

    I would point out that the whole idea of the Schlieffen Plan was to knock France out of the war quickly before the Russians could fully mobilize. In the event, the Russians managed to get two armies in the field more quickly then von Moltke anticipated and led to the entraining of 5 divisions to be transferred from the West to the Eastern front. The Battle of Tannenberg was fought and won before the reinforcements arrived and the Battle of the Marne was fought and lost before they could be returned.

  • Snoof

    An alcoholic, arrogant blowhard full of contempt for the general public who, despite his numerous failures over the course of his career, thinks the world owes him adulation?

    Yeah, I can see the resemblance. Of course, Churchill had the benefit of having enemies who made him look good.

  • colnago80

    Re Snoof @ #26

    As Lincoln replied to critics of Grant who criticized the latter’s taste for alcohol, “find out what his brand is so I can send a case of it to my other generals“. Churchill was right about the big thing, namely that the German Nazi dictator had to be stopped and Chamberlain wasn’t going to stop him.

  • timgueguen

    democommie@23 Winston Churchill didn’t have syphilis. His father Lord Randolph Churchill may have had syphilis, but that is a point of contention.

  • dingojack

    SLC – The Gallipoli Peninsula was hardly undefended in April 1915.

    Sounds like the ‘boys own’/’ripping yarns’ style of military history so popular in the British Empire at the time…


  • democommie


    I can neither confirm nor deny that either Churchill or The Chump had/have syphilis; Churchill was certainly a racist–if he only had syphilis I would think him a better person.

    I will not argue with Conago80 or anyone else re: Churchill’s plans and their execution at Gallipoli. Over 54% of those killed at Gallipoli (on the allies side) were Cobbers and Kiwis.

  • colnago80

    RE dingojack @ #29

    Excuse me, the two platoons of Anzac troops that scaled the heights above Sulva Bay encountered no Turkish Troops. Most of those Turkish troops did not arrive until several days after the initial landings. Hamilton had ample time to occupy the heights above Sulva Bay, entrench, and establish a defensive line to prevent Turkish interference with the landings. Most of the Anzac casualties occurred during the landings after the Turkish forces finally arrived.

    This, of course, neglects the initial failures to force the Dardanelles with pre-Dreadnaught battleships. The guns in the forts above the narrows were silenced by the bombardment but no troops were available to occupy them, thanks to the refusal of the British and French high commands to release any. Had troops been made available to occupy the forts, the Gallipoli action might not have been necessary. The notion that the Dardanelles could be forced open for shipping by bombarding the forts with naval gunfire was piffle. The only way to perform that task was to knock Turkey out of the war.

  • jnorris

    All the political polls showing negative ratings for GOP candidates are as skewed now as they were in 2012.

  • dingojack

    SLC – my information is that the Turkish forces were in place by early April, still I’d be interested to learn the source for your belief that the heights were ‘virtually undefended’ allowing allied troops to land easily*, it would certainly change the complexion of things…



    * Suvla Bay is about 10,000 yards north of the actual landing site at Ari Burnu

  • Al Dente

    According to the Battle of the Landing was not unopposed:

    Even before they reached the beach in the half-light, the small Turkish garrison had spotted them and bullets began hitting the boats, killing some, wounding others.

    Soon hundreds of Australians were hard on the ascent of what was later known as Plugge’s Plateau, their first major obstacle on the peninsula. It was no easy climb: the wounded or killed slid back down the slope until stopped by a bush; bayonets were dug into the earth to help them climb; and from the top of the plateau the Turkish defenders kept up a steady fire.

    Small, isolated groups did manage to make their way up landward slopes towards Chunuk Bair and on to Third or Gun Ridge, from which positions the strait of the Dardanelles was visible, but they were beaten back by ever strengthening Turkish counter-attacks. Indeed, one historian of Gallipoli is convinced that it was this swift and decisive Turkish response that defeated the Anzacs:

    … it was the celerity with which the Turkish command propelled reserves towards the battlefield and the tenacity with which those who met the landing continued to fight that turned the tables.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #33

    I read an account of the Gallipoli campaign about 20 years ago and cannot recall the author at this remote date. However, the author definitely claimed that the initial landing was virtually unopposed and that 2 platoons of troops ascended the heights behind the landing area and observed no Turkish troops. He was extremely critical of the general on the ground who was supervising the landing for not occupying the heights and Ian Hamilton for not giving him a peremptory order to do so. I m a little suspicious of the official account cited by Dante which sound like apologetics for the failure of the enterprise. In particular, I don’t know what part Hamilton and the general supervising the landing had in the preparation of the report or in supplying information on which it was based.

    This would not be unusual. In his official correspondence with Lincoln, George McClellan had any number of excuses for why he did not attack the defending forces in his front which he outnumbered by at least 5 to 1. Similarly, John Lucas had numerous excuses as to why he had not moved out promptly from the landing at Anzio, instead of spending his time supervising the offloading of supplies from the ships offshore. I would note that Douglas MacArthur, who was an assiduous student of military history moved out promptly from the landing at Inchon, cutting off the lines of communication of the North Korean Army besieging the Pusan garrison, causing a collapse of that force. It’s called hubcapping.

  • Al Dente

    SLC @35


  • Al Dente

    SLC @35

    Do you have any idea about how many troops two platoons is? At full strength, two World War I platoons were 109 men. If you’re going to pretend that 100+ men (probably much fewer due to casualties) were going to make a difference then you’re even more fucking ignorant than I previously thought, and I think you’re pretty fucking ignorant.

  • colnago80

    Re Dente @ #37

    Excuse me, as I recall, the two platoons scaled the heights on orders from a local commander as a reconnaissance. Certainly, there was no thought to their staying behind and establishing a defensive trench line. They were supposed to investigate the disposition of Turkish troops, if any, and report back, which they did. The general in charge of the landing was unimpressed with their findings and contented himself in with establishing a base at the foot of the heights, with no thought given as to the purpose of the exercise (the parallels with Lucas at Anzio are almost uncanny). Hamilton was obsessed with the notion that the man on the spot knows best and declined to interfere. Now that is certainly true as a general rule and would have been applicable if Hamilton was back in Gibraltar or London. Certainly the numbnuts in the Admiralty violated this rule by giving tactical orders to Craddock off the Pacific South American Coast, which contributed to his defeat at Coronal. However, Hamilton wasn’t several thousand miles away from the landing site, he was maybe 20,000 yards off the coast in one of the covering warships. Hardly not on the spot.

  • amadan


    The idea that the Allies could ‘knock Turkey out of the war’ was premised on the Allies being able to take and hold the Bosphorus. (And yes, it was envisaged that the Russians would take Turkey into their ‘sphere of influence’ – read Andrew Mango’s excellent biography of Attaturk).

    But Churchill simply expected the Turks, as conquered wogs, to quietly accept rule by the Allies after being defeated – an entirely unrealistic prospect that the Foreign Office told Downing St was utter madness, particularly after the growth of nationalism in Turkey and the resentment of British and French moves against the Turkish dominions across the ME. (That the Turkish and German interests in question were equally imperialist is not the issue!)

    In short, the Allies may have been able to take the Bosphorus but they would have never been able to hold it without committing unacceptable levels of reserves needed in France.

  • colnago80

    Re amadan @ #39

    They didn’t have to hold it forever, just for a year or two to facilitate the shipping of war supplies to Russia. It is conceivable that the war could have been ended in 1916 with the German forces on the Western front driven back by the necessity to reinforce their Eastern front against the Russians. As I stated, the Russians had no capacity to occupy part of Turkey while the war against Germany and Austria was going on. They needed every man on the Eastern front.

    In short, the Allies may have been able to take the Bosphorus but they would have never been able to hold it without committing unacceptable levels of reserves needed in France.

    Well, the allies managed to find several divisions to conduct the Gallipoli campaign. By the way, it is interesting to understand why Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany in the first place. The failed British attempt to sink the Goeben, which managed to evade British squadrons and sail through the Dardanelles unscathed, which battlecruiser was then turned over to the Turkish Navy as a bribe. Another example of an incompetent commander being placed in charge of an important command, in this case Admiral Milne.

  • mostlymarvelous

    By the way, it is interesting to understand why Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany in the first place.

    Upsetting the whole Turkish population who’d contributed to the purchase price of a couple of battleships might have stiffened the spines of those who might otherwise not have been too fussed probably helped a bit.

    All the families of grandmothers and schoolboys who’d scrimped and scraped to save a bit to put towards the public subscriptions to buy those ships would have been more than a bit cross at the Brits in the face of this. Germany and Turkey were already negotiating at that point. And then Germany offered a couple of ships as replacements for those commandeered by the Brits.

    Turkey’s wavering between neutral but friendly versus active ally to Germany then came down firmly on the side of allied with Germany. (They’d probably have got there anyway, but it’s not very sensible to turn a possibility into a certainty.)

  • colnago80

    Re mostlymarvelous @ #41

    Ah yes, that had slipped my mind. Certainly the offer of the Goeben to Turkey in addition to the 2 battleships that were not delivered by Great Britain was a strong incentive to Turkey joining the Triple Alliance. It was no loss to Germany as the Goeben wasn’t going anywhere as it was bottled up in the Black Sea by greatly superior British forces. The story of the Goeben, The Ship that Changed the World, by Dan Van der Vat chronicles the failures of the British Admiralty in the Goeben affair before Admiral Fisher was reappointed as the First Sea Lord. The combination of the Goeben escaping together with the sinking of Craddock’s squadron by von Spee’s squadron was more then sufficient to overcome Fisher’s many enemies in the Admiralty. An example of being penny wise and pound foolish on the part of perfidious Albion. In fact, one of the ships not delivered, the HMS Agincourt, which carried 14 twelve inch guns, the most heavy guns ever mounted on a capital ship, really was not a very satisfactory ship and it would have been no great loss to British sea power to deliver it to Turkey. It added very little to the power of the Grand Fleet.

  • Al Dente

    SLC, you’re claiming to be working off of 20 year old memory of some book or paper or movie or bullshit which you haven’t identified. I’ve quoted the Australian government website on Galliopli (and given a link). The Australian government says things completely different from the bullshit you’re trying to sell. If anything, the Aussies are even more anti-Churchill than you are.