Conservative Group Spending Millions To Humiliate Trump

The conservative Club For Growth has had a longstanding feud with Donald Trump, and now they are spending several million dollars to defeat the candidates that Trump is endorsing. This move can only serve to humiliate the former President, as there really isn't much daylight in the views of the candidates they are fighting against and fighting for. Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

The conservative club for growth has long been a enemy or friend of Donald Trump, really, depending on the day of the week, ever since he announced his candidacy in 2015, when the club for growth started running ads saying there's nothing conservative about Donald Trump actually tying him to Hillary Clinton because he had given her money at one point. And then over the years, things were Rocky sometimes good, sometimes bad, mostly bad. But today this year, the club for growth has said, screw it. As of right now, we're going all in against Donald Trump. And their goal is apparently to humiliate him by funding the people that he doesn't endorse for Congress so far, the group has spent about 2 million fighting candidates that Trump has endorsed. One of them of course, was the fact that, uh, club for growth endorsed Josh Mandel and not JD Vance in the Ohio Republican Senate primary, that didn't work out too well for them.

And now they've decided to take the fight to Pennsylvania where they are backing, not Dr. MEIT Oz, who is of course the candidate that Trump has endorsed. Instead, they're going with Republican, Kathy Barnett, who for the record is polling at the bottom of the Republicans in that primary right now, uh, Oz and, uh, uh, Republican challenger. David McCormick are of course pretty much in a statistical tie, but club for growth says, no, we wanna not let Trump's person win. So we're gonna fund not the guy that actually is within a hair's breath of winning. We're gonna fund Kathy Barnett because the club for growth is apparently really bad with money. Now, look, I am all in favor of conservatives fighting one another, this little conservative war over Trump's endorsements. And oh, he is endorsing stupid people. So let's go out and endorse the other people and all of that.

And I love conservative groups, wasting money on stupid fights, but really club for growth. You've been around in politics. A heck of a lot longer than Donald Trump, longer than JD Vance or Josh Mandel or Dr. Meas longer than most people. Hell you've been around longer than I've been in politics. How are you this bad at it is the question I have. Right? You come out, you endorse Josh Mandel up in Ohio. He's losing by 26 points to JD Vance. And you think, oh yeah, we got a winner here. Oh, we're we're gonna do good. We're the club for growth. We're a mainstay in conservative politics. So you used to be, I don't think you are anymore. You look at the polls up there in Pennsylvania and you see, okay. When McCormick has a shot at beating us, McCormick

Is likely to be the nominee. Trump's endorsed Oz. How do we wanna humiliate Trump? Let's go with Kathy Burnett. I don't know who said that, but you get a raise. I, I, I don't understand this horrible decision making from this once respected group. I mean, not to say that I'm on Trump's side in this feud, but really look at the polls guys, open up your eyes. Maybe spend your money where you might be able to successfully humiliate Donald Trump. Instead, the only person here being humiliated are the ones at the club for growth. Like y'all are embarrassing yourselves, not Donald Trump. You're making him seem like an even bigger winner when you come out and spend millions of dollars only to lose to him. So I don't know what you're trying to pull. Maybe some kind of reverse psychology, but whatever it is it sure as heck isn't working. And it's definitely not Donald Trump. Who's getting humiliated here.