He's not shooting himself in the foot because if he could he would of done 40 times already. He is the true Teflon Don. Let's say the field gets down to 4, who are they going to rally around to knock him out?
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
It may be the delegates at the convention. A floor fight is a real possibility. Trump has no chance there but unfortunately Bush has a good chance there.
first, his poll numbers sag under their own weight and start coming back to earth as America gets as tired of the Donald as they do of Cecil the Lion. Second, we actually get to the primary and he's still somewhere near the top of the polls. Until his merry band of Twitter assholes and Facebook sharers realizes they actually have to do more than click "retweet" to cast a primary ballot for him and the majority of them fail to do so.
he taps into something out there that crosses political lines. His supporters don't like him, they love him. If you think his support is low information wing nuts, you are in for a rude awakening. A lot of very smart successful people
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
There are 17 (R) candidates and it is August 2015... no one is really paying that close attention, so the the media gravitates to ratings -grabber Trump. People are generally fed up with the government and the hollow truths they tells us, so Trump's brand of "tell it like it is" feels refreshing.
At some point next year, sh!t gets serious, the # candidates whittle down and Trump goes back to being the sideshow clown that he is.
Do we really need a new thread on him every week?
I'm no longer interested in seeing him knocked out Â
His presence is a big fu to the PAC money candidates that are spending millions to craft their image and exploit the media to make them look presidential. Looks don't cut it. No one on the GOP is talking about issues proactively (cut this, eliminate that is not building a better anything). Trump's only vulnerability is issues, so he puts pressure on them to go there. The sooner they start promoting a vision, the better off they will be.
he taps into something out there that crosses political lines. His supporters don't like him, they love him. If you think his support is low information wing nuts, you are in for a rude awakening. A lot of very smart successful people
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
We've talked about it on other threads but it's not just a Republican appeal, that is true. And from what I gather (and this is anecdotally) it's not just angry white people either, though I would imagine his unfavorables among Hispanic voters are close to triple digits. Hillary Clinton is just that repulsive, and Jeb Bush just that utterly uninspiring, and people wonder why in the fuck this is the best we can do.
Bernie Sanders sound canned and paid for career politician. Hillary is toast. Forget about her, she's done. I see a possibility of a Trump presidency which I didn't see a month ago
They have been doing this dance in the NYC tabloids for 40 years. Expecting him to knock himself out is wishful thinking. He has more experience at his brand of PR than anyone else in the race.
finally someone who says what he really feels even if what he says isn't doable or practiclal. He is unafraid. People are sick of professional politicians with their poll tested answers.
I think somewhere along the way Trump went from a guy Â
Looking to have some fun running for President to realizing he could actually be President. He fancies himself the 2016 version of Ronald Regan - a charismatic guy with strong leadership skills without a real Presidential pedigree, but a guy who can win.
That being said, it is still very early so anything can happen. I think Kasich is a guy with a charisma and personality who could take off if he makes it far enough.
Jeb and Walker have been shockingly bad. Robotic, no spine, sort of aloof.
Looking to have some fun running for President to realizing he could actually be President. He fancies himself the 2016 version of Ronald Regan - a charismatic guy with strong leadership skills without a real Presidential pedigree, but a guy who can win.
That being said, it is still very early so anything can happen. I think Kasich is a guy with a charisma and personality who could take off if he makes it far enough.
Jeb and Walker have been shockingly bad. Robotic, no spine, sort of aloof.
Reagan was the governor of the most populous state in the country and had been speaking with a relatively consistent message on political affairs for a generation. He was also a man who had genuine appeal to broad swaths of people, even among some who disagreed with him. Trump is the anti-Reagan.
I watch the candidates do their interviews and my eyeballs roll because it is the same politically correct poll tested watch every word pablum. To me it's all blah, blah, blah. It's refreshing to hear someone speak their mind and talk about how they really feel even if some stuff is from crazy town. People are fed up looking to professional pols to fix the problems.
he taps into something out there that crosses political lines. His supporters don't like him, they love him. If you think his support is low information wing nuts, you are in for a rude awakening. A lot of very smart successful people
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
Being "smart and successful" and being a "low information wingnut" are not remotely mutually exclusive.
Toby HarndenVerified account
þ@tobyharnden
Page 1, today's @thesundaytimes: @realDonaldTrump tried to woo Princess Diana, saw her as "the ultimate trophy wife"
So whats the spin? She was the ultimate trophy wife, and the Donald spent alot time and money trying to get her on his boat (anybody remember that enormous rig he used to park at the Water Club? It had a funny name and he wound up selling it to a Saudi during one of his flirts with bankruptcy). And of course he wound up with Marla Maples, who he picked up at church and was a far cry from Lady Di.
Just more of The Donald. When you go into his past that's typical of what you'll find.
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
Plus, of course, there is ample time for many of his supporters to get tired of him as the flavor du jour.
Plus, plus, his history of liberal views in many areas, possibly aside from illegal immigration, won't fly in a lot of states after Iowa and NH. But there is an excellent chance he will stay around long enough to make things very messy for the ultimate candidate.
And, his views on immigration are typical: he has staked out a position so extreme that even a lot of Republicans will end up uncomfortable.
Still think Hillary gets the nomination unless something full-blown indictable is laid at her doorstep--not at one of her team's. Bernie has a ceiling, too, and no ground game. Biden has no ground game either, and he will inevitably say some really stupid things, because he's Biden.
Trump will have to talk about the issues in depth, policies, and talk about real solutions and plans. That should go pretty poorly. And until then, he will continue to put his foot in his mouth, given him being a loud-mouthed, arrogant asshole and all.
But is that necessarily the case? Won't Cruz supporters move to him? Won't Huckabee supporters? What about Ben Carson who is in second?
I don't think it's a given that everyone will suddenly flock to Jeb Bush. He probably picks up Fiorino fans, Rubio fans, Christie fans too but that doesnt add up to that much...
The level of your ceiling matters a lot, and Trump's is low. Will Tea Party Activists and others who tend to vote in primaries flock to a candidate whose positions they don;t trust at all? Doubtful. Trump's six stages of doom. - ( New Window )
there hasn't even been a single primary vote cast yet Â
Show people you have a pulse. Be who you are, that your comfortable within your own skin. Say what you mean and defend it.
The Trump phenomenon is really not all about him (all though I'm sure he would like you to believe otherwise). It's the same reason why Bernie & Carson are currently doing well. Imo also why Reagan and Obama were successful candidates.
who seem to know Hillary is done and Trump will shoot himself in the foot well before this gets serious. Its a fact these 2 things are going down.LMAO.
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Eventually the Republican race will get down to two candidates. As others have said, the question is how much higher than that 30% or so can he count on from the (rightfully) angry anti-establishment GOP group. Has he hit a ceiling of absolute numbers of angry but not very thoughtful supporters?
It's my belief (hope?) that the Trumpistas are more of a fringe group than what I saw as a more rational Tea Party group (despite the MSM). Many in the latter were disillusioned, rather than fired up when they voted "their guys" in, and nothing happened despite promises. (ObamaCare, immigration etc)
For those reasons, I see (hope?) the other "non-establishment" candidates (Cruz, Carson, Carly, et al; maybe even Rubio) in the long run gathering most of the votes from those currently not supporting Trump.
The WORST thing other candidates (and right leaning media) can do is attack Donald. That would only add to the angry supporters who think he is being treated unfairly, and could even trigger an irrational third party run.
The latest GOP poll was done by Fox 8/11-8/13. It has Â
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
Cruz, Walker, Santorum are basically the same guy from the point of view of the less locally interested or casual right winger.
You can add Paul if you like, I think he is different that those guys, much more moderate in certain positions (listen carefully, he refused to condemn gay marriage, instead taking the position of getting the government/the state, out of the marriage business...which is a great idea).
Nevertheless, take any candidate from the right, other than Trump...as the option to Trump vs Hillz...and that 'any' candidate beats Trump by 80/20.
Ditto any of the moderates, Florio/Rubio/Kasich. as the option, 80/20.
Once again, the media has been truly idiotic on this.
Cruz, Walker, Santorum are basically the same guy from the point of view of the less locally interested or casual right winger.
You can add Paul if you like, I think he is different that those guys, much more moderate in certain positions (listen carefully, he refused to condemn gay marriage, instead taking the position of getting the government/the state, out of the marriage business...which is a great idea).
Nevertheless, take any candidate from the right, other than Trump...as the option to Trump vs Hillz...and that 'any' candidate beats Trump by 80/20.
Ditto any of the moderates, Florio/Rubio/Kasich. as the option, 80/20.
Once again, the media has been truly idiotic on this.
Cruz, Walker and Santorum are different candidates with very different constituencies. Santorum has limited traction outside the religious right. Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party and fellow travelers. And Walker is liked among much of the base for his attacks on public sector unions in Wisconsin but doesn't have an obvious constituency of GOP voters.
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
BOO! I reject the two party system. They are the biggest problem in American politics, IMO.
good post man george I agree with everything you said except
Quote:
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
BOO! I reject the two party system. They are the biggest problem in American politics, IMO.
That's fine for a general election. But primaries are an election only for one party or the other, so whether or not there should be more than one party is not relevant to that. The primary is for the party to decide upon the best candidate to present their message, so it makes no sense for non party members to influence that.
good post man george I agree with everything you said except
Quote:
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
it won't be Sanders ever.
Just a point, the 'hits' that Hillary is taking are of her own making and are being delivered by the FBI. The 'right' has nothing to do with it.
good post man george I agree with everything you said except
Quote:
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
it won't be Sanders ever.
Just a point, the 'hits' that Hillary is taking are of her own making and are being delivered by the FBI. The 'right' has nothing to do with it.
to the fact that Trump DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING about policy, diplomacy, presidential politics, etc he'll hit his ceiling. He hasn't answered one question with anything of substance.
Take for example his retort on the ACA - "I'd replace it with something terrific...and work out a really smart deal with hospitals."
What?
He's quotable. Angry. Arrogant. And completely full of shit. Like his supporters.
he's a business man, he get 'his people' to get an economic and foreign policy one.
You can have a candidate that has all these well thought out policies that you agree with. And then they get into office and they either don't or can't do any of them. People think Trump will do what he says.
So DOJ and the FBI are part of the vast right wing conspiracy?
And I will say this. The hit job mantra might work with the Democratic faithful with respect to any criminal charges. But what would finish Hillary's candidacy, and I believe one of the things the FBI is looking at, is whether the server was hacked. Now perhaps wiping clean might have erased evidence with regards to hacking, but a discovery that her home brewed server was hacked by Russia or China would be fatal.
Only point - Trump, Sanders, & Carson are doing well in the polls because they are being themselves; perceived as genuine. People tired of political BS and typical managed message candidate.
By no means am I saying they have a chance to win. Rather, the non-fringe type candidates could learn a lesson.
I love the fact Trump gave helicopter rides at Iowa state fair Â
ACA replacement, etc. will have to be replaced by actual plans as the field narrows down.
Other candidates will run attack ads, not just about what he says, but about what he doesn't say.
"Donald Trump says he has a secret plan to defeat ISIS, defeat China economically, and replace Obamacare, among many other things. Before you vote for him to Represent Republicans as a presidential candidate, wouldn't you like to know what those secret plans are? Tell Donald to show us his plans."
Then of course, he will come up with nothing, and begin to fade, if he hasn't already.
to the fact that Trump DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING about policy, diplomacy, presidential politics, etc he'll hit his ceiling. He hasn't answered one question with anything of substance.
Take for example his retort on the ACA - "I'd replace it with something terrific...and work out a really smart deal with hospitals."
What?
He's quotable. Angry. Arrogant. And completely full of shit. Like his supporters.
Most of his supporters are fed up with the same old shit, not full of it. Dumb statement.
Obamacare and he also said he wouldn't back out of the Iran deal.He did say that he thinks everyone deserves the safety net of coverage. He did say as a businessman you dont tear up a deal but you can hold Iran to everything that is the deal
he'll plummet faster than Howard Dean after a scream.
As for his comments, there isn't a politician alive who utters anything more than generic soundbite stuff in public, like 'I'll only spy on those who need spying on and leave the honest folk alone'.
Once you know that, you have the answer to the Trump question.
Winning a presidential primary isn't about popularity, not at this stage, anyway. Poll numbers are nice because good numbers bring in money and support. But to actually win the primary, you need an organization. You need a ground game. You need people knocking on doors and making phone calls.
You also need to fucking work every day, pressing the flesh with the peons and visiting every tiny town in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The old maxim that bad generals talk about tactics and great ones talk about logistics applies here in spades.
and on policy no more learned or astute than Sarah Palin.
That is why he is full of shit. He's got nothing alternative to offer, other than anger to feed his fearful, bigoted followers, who remind me a lot of the Yonkers yokels on HBO last night.
Once you know that, you have the answer to the Trump question.
Winning a presidential primary isn't about popularity, not at this stage, anyway. Poll numbers are nice because good numbers bring in money and support. But to actually win the primary, you need an organization. You need a ground game. You need people knocking on doors and making phone calls.
You also need to fucking work every day, pressing the flesh with the peons and visiting every tiny town in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The old maxim that bad generals talk about tactics and great ones talk about logistics applies here in spades.
Your right. Also, if Trump stays in for the long haul he better start working on his policies & what exactly he's gonna do to actually fix the mess we're in & let the public in on it. Bluster will only last so long.
And then he needs a plan to replace the low-cost farm and domestic workers nearly everyone prefers to lets stay with a wink and a nod, after he kicks out 11.5 million illegals. Does he have a guest worker program? What does it look like?
Is in terms of Iran. I keep hearing 'This deal sucks. If I'm president, I will dismantle it.' Alright, but what then? The sanctions aren't coming back if we skip out on this. So we'd be isolated in that aspect, as well as now Iran doing whatever the hell wants.
All true, and I can't believe you are actually entertaining Â
this entitled piece of garbage, an unabashed bigot, who is exploiting and legitimizing the inchoate hostility of a fearful, aging white population and encouraging them to focus that hostility on Latino and black people. Trumps Mexican rapists are on the same ideological plane as the Charleston's shooter's "You black people are raping our women."
Trump supporters are the same people Roger Ailes targets all the time: the folks who have been pissing their pants and spewing conspiracy theories in the face of a massive demographic shift in the US, that has gained momentum and shifted white people into soon-to-be-minority status. Oh shit, we're going to lose our unearned advantage over everybody else!
If you support Trump because "ZOMG BILLIONAIRE!!!1111" ... take a look at his record in Atlantic City. Yeah, do that to the rest of the US.
*head-desk*
He's an entertainer; a snake oil salesman, and he's running an entirely ego-driven campaign to avenge his public humiliation by President Obama at the Correspondents Dinner, the night Obama killed Bin Laden.
the guy to do the things he says he wants done. A lot of what he is saying I agree with. I am sick of boiler plate pols including HRC. If there was someone with the skills to implement some of what he is talking about, I'm on board
is JUST to angry white men frustrated over the loss of their near-monopoly on governance, you're pretty evidently projecting your own preconceptions onto them. Headhunter is right, at least in part. This is a wider rejection of canned candidates, the sort of scripted, nonthreatening folks who seem to do the bidding of big-dollar donors. The anger in the Occupy movements and the anger of the Tea Party crowd are not as diametrically opposed as we would prefer that they be.
RE: All true, and I can't believe you are actually entertaining Â
this entitled piece of garbage, an unabashed bigot, who is exploiting and legitimizing the inchoate hostility of a fearful, aging white population and encouraging them to focus that hostility on Latino and black people. Trumps Mexican rapists are on the same ideological plane as the Charleston's shooter's "You black people are raping our women."
Trump supporters are the same people Roger Ailes targets all the time: the folks who have been pissing their pants and spewing conspiracy theories in the face of a massive demographic shift in the US, that has gained momentum and shifted white people into soon-to-be-minority status. Oh shit, we're going to lose our unearned advantage over everybody else!
If you support Trump because "ZOMG BILLIONAIRE!!!1111" ... take a look at his record in Atlantic City. Yeah, do that to the rest of the US.
*head-desk*
He's an entertainer; a snake oil salesman, and he's running an entirely ego-driven campaign to avenge his public humiliation by President Obama at the Correspondents Dinner, the night Obama killed Bin Laden.
Guess you're not gonna be wearing a "Make America Great" hat anytime soon.
Schnitzel, Trump is more than qualified to be president because Â
We have a community organizer now. Trump is saying to do things alot of Americans are afraid to say because of political correctness or witch hunt name calling which you are doing. I don't agree with everything Trump wants but as of today he is the choice so far according to polls. Megan Kelly tried to hot Carl him on at the debate and he withstood that.
and on policy no more learned or astute than Sarah Palin.
That is why he is full of shit. He's got nothing alternative to offer, other than anger to feed his fearful, bigoted followers, who remind me a lot of the Yonkers yokels on HBO last night.
Maybe, I mean he sponsors a beauty pageant. But check this out:
Quote:
Appearing on CNN’s “New Day,” Trump Executive Vice President Michael Cohen offered to show CNN how much Trump pays women in his organization and said other candidates should follow suit.
Cohen said there are more men that work for the company in “most respects,” but added that there are more female executives at the Trump organization than men.
“Women who are similarly situated in positions…are actually paid more,” he added.
“And you can prove it? Sounds too good to be true,” CNN host Chris Cuomo responded.
But Cohen claimed he certainly can prove it. Watch the segment via CNN:
Meanwhile Hillary is all over War on Women, but pays the women on her staff less than the men. Link - ( New Window )
Oh great, now people don't understand the male-female Â
by those that know him including HRC knows that what you see on camera is who he has been off camera every dasy for the last 30 years. He is a good time waiting to happen. He is the real Good Time Charlie, the guy that is having a blast everyday, dates and marries the best looking women, gets approached in the streets and takes the time to talk to regular people, take pictures with him,. Everyone that spends time with him,loves hanging with him. He is not afraid to say what is on his mind and people love him. The idea to build the fence has been around a long time, this is not a Trump idea, the reason it got shot down was it was too expensive.
RE: Schnitzel, Trump is more than qualified to be president because Â
In comment 12422213 Rich Houston-NYG-WR-1971 said:
Quote:
We have a community organizer now. Trump is saying to do things alot of Americans are afraid to say because of political correctness or witch hunt name calling which you are doing. I don't agree with everything Trump wants but as of today he is the choice so far according to polls. Megan Kelly tried to hot Carl him on at the debate and he withstood that.
That was a softball that he could have hit out of the park, but he came unprepared for any criticism and he attacked Kelly way too vociferously.
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
I would like to see Trump Cic of armed forces. The idea to make Â
I can see him having more of a shot today than i did a month ago. I think he has said some good things and some things I don't agree with. I would ideally like someone to take the best of what he says have the ability to get elected and have a shot at implementing stuff. His ego is huge, but there is a method to his madness. You listen how
he builds himself up and tears apart his rivals is a thing of beauty. The first couple of times you hear him do it, you get repulsed or pissed or whatever. The more he does it, the more you see how effective it is.
Who's the last complete buffoon to serve as POTUS? Â
let me make $1 billion and you can call me anything you want, I make $2 billion, I'll make whatever name you come up with my personal license plate, I make $3 billion and I'll name it my plane
1) Learn to use your name as a real estate brand. Trump arbitraged his name to enhance his property value. Not a presidential attribute, but impressive.
2) Make sure that when casinos you are involved in go bankrupt, it's a corporate bankruptcy, and you already sold your ownership share.
There hasn't been any real discussion yet of the 4 corporate bankruptcies Trump has been involved in. There will be, I promise.
RE: There are plenty of successful people who fill the Buffoon Â
Now WILL he win probably not. But I can think of other times in history where an orator came along whipping the citizens into a frenzy and catapulting them into power. The early 1900's in Germany comes to mind. Not saying Trump is hitler, I'm simply saying there comes a time when people are sick of the status quo and demand change. This could be that time for the U.S. I personally don't thinks so, but who am I to say for certain.
Trump WAS an early hire-er of female executives. I knew a couple back in the late 1980s. They made La Cosa Nostra look friendly and flexible, but they did have female genitalia.
and golf courses in the world. One day if you get to NYC, stop into the Trump Tower. What i like about him is he never takes vacations, he will work 360 out of 365 days a year and not end up on a ranch in Texas or Martha's Vineyard for the month of August.
Unless 538 has completely lost it's analytical skills, THEY are to say he can;t win, for a long list of good and valid reasons.
As you get closer to the actual election, policy positions, policy knowledge, historical weaknesses to target, a low ceiling of voters who are willing to accept him, and lack
of ground staff all matter. He has no ground game whatsoever. In this modern era, that matters a lot.
If he hired women who weren't sharks, I would note that, too. Two of the rudest and most obnoxious women/people I have ever met in my life, quite literally, were Trump real estate managers.
As I said, I don't think he gets the nomination. But he most definitely could get the public support. And from what I've heard he definitely has teams on the ground in primary towns. Maybe I'm wrong but I could have sworn I heard about it during and after the debate.
Most likely doesn't get the nomination but I'm not counting him out yet.
Trump is not a dumb guy. I'd be willing to bet he has hired some pretty knowledgable consultants that are crafting his policies as we speak. I don't take this run as lightly as his past interests and attempts.
Guaranteed, passionate Tea Partiers on the one side and progressives on the other, who work for free, will give the last standing candidates in either party advantages Trump won't get.
And last of all, the massive blitz of media spending comes much later, where super-PACs will crap all over him. He isn't going to get super-PAC support.
He was offered $5million from one of his buddies over the weekend who wanted to get involved and Trump turned him down. He will take small contributions from individuals so they can feel engaged, but he is not taking big money donors or involved with PAC's. That is one of the reasons I like him, you cant buy him, he doesn't owe anyone"favors"
RE: I'd still love to know what the 'better deal' Â
The sanctions aren't coming back if we skip out on this.
What makes you think the sanctions (snap back to be specific) are going hold if we don't skip out. Russia has already had Soleimani in for talks and announced they will sell Iran the S-300 air defense system as well. Once they get their $60-150 billion that treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on.
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
Actually, IIRC, Dan Rather came flat out in a press conference and asked Nixon if he were a criminal.
Alot of people make Trump Out to be general zod or worse khan Â
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
You mean like the "missile gap" and who "lost" China?
Maybe the coverage at the time stuck to the big stuff and didn't get stuck on appearances or "defining" the candidate. Kennedy made Bill Clinton seem like St Paul the Apostle, slept with a Soviet spy, got his PT boat cut in half by a destroyer when he and the crew were either drunk or asleep, and may have been addicted to painkillers. Nixon thoroughly enjoyed his cocktails-often. There were people who knew this stuff but it didn't come out because it wasn't thought pertinent or important and it would diminish the office. I don't know that they were wrong in doing so.
As to the OP's point, Trump will fade as others take up some of the things he says and does that seem to attract support. It already may have started: Sanders said he is not going to apologize to Black Lives Matter.
1) You are comparing him to 17 candidates, not one or two as will be the case later on;
2) Grass roots is different from professional operatives;
3) As we get further into the political season, the super-PACS will be on him like white on rice. So will the Washington mainstream republican base. None of the major money that isn't his comes from anyone with a reason to support him; and
4) The 30% or so cap to his favorability will matter as the number of opponents dwindle.
5) The number of skeletons in his closet is massive, and the smarter operatives against him are still holding their fire on those.
Have you seen anything to the contrary on any of these five points?
They already ran with an article where his wife said he raped her (during their divorce) and she comes out, says it's not true and that he'd be a great President.
He touched the third rail of immigration and his support ballooned.
He said John McCain wasn't a war hero, again, no issue.
He attacked Megyn Kelly with a sexist rant about her bleeding, doesn't seem to have had an effect.
Everyone knows about his bankruptcies, that he donated to Hillary, that he said he wanted single payer, and that hasn't stopped him.
I've said all along that Trump and some of the other non-establishment candidates are the people's way of saying Fuck You to the establishment government, political consultants and the media. People seem to be responding more to his way of saying things than the details of what he is saying. Until they find someone who better represents what they think/feel, Trump will remain.
is a legit candidate. in a country where celebrity matters, where former actors, pro football players, bodybuilding champions and WWF wrestlers have been presidents, governors of major states, it is no surprise that a guy like trump is in the lead.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
RE: Who's the last complete buffoon to serve as POTUS? Â
up to his cap. His cap has actually increased recently, but no one is running a ad blitz against him yet. His skeletons are all in his mouth--he has said so many things on TV that will make for wonderful attack ads against him.
No one is spending money like that yet. They will. I would bet they could make 20 attack ads against him just out of stuff he has said that's on you-tube.
until they get to full-blown debates with 4 or less participants. At that point you have to at least look as if you have bona fide ideas and political acumen on a bunch of topics.
Debates matter, especially when you get past the "secret plan" phase.
Loke I said. A community organizer is pots now. How can Â
is a legit candidate. in a country where celebrity matters, where former actors, pro football players, bodybuilding champions and WWF wrestlers have been presidents, governors of major states, it is no surprise that a guy like trump is in the lead.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
Hey Les, given Toronto's recent history of selection of mayors I'd say that's not limited to the US. I do concede, however, that your elections are held in a much more reasonable timeframe.
RE: Loke I said. A community organizer is pots now. How can Â
until they get to full-blown debates with 4 or less participants. At that point you have to at least look as if you have bona fide ideas and political acumen on a bunch of topics.
Debates matter, especially when you get past the "secret plan" phase.
I'm not sure debates matters as much as they used to....and debates today are a lot of canned nonsense/hot air and not as much exchange of ideas or listening or rational discourse.
is a legit candidate. in a country where celebrity matters, where former actors, pro football players, bodybuilding champions and WWF wrestlers have been presidents, governors of major states, it is no surprise that a guy like trump is in the lead.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
Hey Les, given Toronto's recent history of selection of mayors I'd say that's not limited to the US. I do concede, however, that your elections are held in a much more reasonable timeframe.
would have been interesting to see if rob ford would have been re-elected if he did not pull out due to cancer. thankfully his idiot but non crack abusing brother was defeated, but did get 34% of the vote finishing in second.
I'm not sure debates matters as much as they used to Â
other than the manufactured ones (between Christie and Paul for example). There was just questions lobbed at the candidates. It was awful. Fox did a terrible job.
other than the manufactured ones (between Christie and Paul for example). There was just questions lobbed at the candidates. It was awful. Fox did a terrible job.
Actually, the Christie - Huckabee discussion of entitlements was one of the better moments of the evening. That's the kind of thing I'm looking forward to in these events and rarely see.
RE: And to be honest, Trump was right about the bleeding Â
and golf courses in the world. One day if you get to NYC, stop into the Trump Tower. What i like about him is he never takes vacations, he will work 360 out of 365 days a year and not end up on a ranch in Texas or Martha's Vineyard for the month of August.
Nothing wrong with Marthas Vinyard and golfing at Farm neck if your the president. B
but I heard his son Rric a little while back on the Opie and Jim Norton show say that his dad loves to work and doesn't like to take a vacation. Whenever they went on one he couldn't get comfortable and couldn't wait to get back to work
They already ran with an article where his wife said he raped her (during their divorce) and she comes out, says it's not true and that he'd be a great President.
He touched the third rail of immigration and his support ballooned.
He said John McCain wasn't a war hero, again, no issue.
He attacked Megyn Kelly with a sexist rant about her bleeding, doesn't seem to have had an effect.
Everyone knows about his bankruptcies, that he donated to Hillary, that he said he wanted single payer, and that hasn't stopped him.
I've said all along that Trump and some of the other non-establishment candidates are the people's way of saying Fuck You to the establishment government, political consultants and the media. People seem to be responding more to his way of saying things than the details of what he is saying. Until they find someone who better represents what they think/feel, Trump will remain.
I think what is resonating with his followers and other Americans are that he is precisely describing what is wrong with our system, in that our pre-chosen leaders do not serve the people, but rather corporate and big government interests (military, internal).
He has repeatedly told every American that will listen that our politicians are bought and they do not serve us. What he does is up to imagination and his policies reveal, but I think it suggests that Americans are tired of playing the fool, as they know these guys are just a bunch of liars and snake oil salesmen. He is stepping up and Americans have a choice. You see exactly how cowardly many of the Republicans are in that they will not even defend themselves as they know they are stooges to their puppet masters and handlers. They want their sugar daddies to fix it for them. I think he has a great chance if he can survive some type of "hidden threat" to him. Sanders will never win as he won't fly in the South.
Heck, I could make 20 attack ads against Trump just out comments by him that are now on You-Tube.
There is some game theory going on here. Why should candidate X use his powder against Trump while he is popular, with 16 other candidates in the field? Wait until this gets whittled down, and watch the knives come out, along with lots of media buys.
Also, some people here are confused over the difference between populist and conservative. Trump appeals to some populists, but not to conservative ones, and especially not to the Religious Right or true fiscal conservatives/Tea Partiers. Ultimately, these groups will cluster against him when it matters.
And, when it gets whittled down, his lack of political experience will become glaringly obvious. Obama has been awful in dealing with Congress, but Trump has no proof that he would be even as good. That stuff matters.
is that if politicians are bought and paid for they are bought and paid for BY PEOPLE LIKE TRUMP. Trump can rail against that but it's part and parcel of his business model - pursuing favorable tax treatment and other carrots from government.
I get the anti-Establishment narrative, and I understand that there are lessons to be learned from this campaign whether it peters out in a month or in a year. But at the end of the day Trump is a clownish fucking buffoon, and everything about his campaign is a despicable troll job perpetrated on the American public. Trump is Rich Houston if Rich Houston had a team of sycophants to follow him around and cheer him on.
RE: Glad to see rich infecting other threads besides football again... Â
The ideas once languished at the edge of Republican politics, confined to think tanks and no-hope bills on Capitol Hill. To solve the problem of illegal immigration, truly drastic measures were necessary: Deport the undocumented en masse. Seize the money they try to send home. Deny citizenship to their U.S.-born children.
Now, all of those ideas have been embraced by Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican presidential race, who has followed up weeks of doom-saying about illegal immigrants with a call for an unprecedented crackdown. On Monday, Trump’s hard turn was already influencing the rest of the GOP field. In Iowa, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also began to call for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, echoing a longtime Trump demand. Walker said the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories is proof that the concept could work here.
Walker also seemed to echo Trump by questioning “birthright citizenship,” the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to anyone born in this country. After a reporter asked if birthright citizenship should be ended, Walker said: “I think that’s something we should — yeah, absolutely, going forward.”
But — in a sign of how quickly Trump has changed the terms of this race — Walker had difficulty clearly articulating where exactly he stands on the issue, wanting to steal some of Trump’s momentum but not quite sure to what extent. He went on to say that if the United States enforces the laws it already has, that alone might take care of the problem.
The challenge in a 17 person field with an outlyer in first place is to maintain your own positions while surviving long enough to take on the outlyer directly later on.
That isn't easy, and it's one of the reasons Trump is skating, for now.
the guy to do the things he says he wants done. A lot of what he is saying I agree with. I am sick of boiler plate pols including HRC. If there was someone with the skills to implement some of what he is talking about, I'm on board
I've been agreeing with you right down the line. I think people who are underestimating are downplaying Trumps chances are in for a surprise.
This is a brilliant political analyst who, better than anyone else I have read, adapts his outlook for changing media practices and changing conditions.
That is one of the reasons I like him, you cant buy him, he doesn't owe anyone"favor
Well the same was said about Bloomberg -- He was self financed so he didn't owe anyone anything but the wealthy real estate and finance guys are his friends and his fellow plutocrats
so in the end Bloomberg did their bidding and nothing really changed in NYC except it got more expensive for poor and middle class to live here.
That is one of the reasons I like him, you cant buy him, he doesn't owe anyone"favor
Well the same was said about Bloomberg -- He was self financed so he didn't owe anyone anything but the wealthy real estate and finance guys are his friends and his fellow plutocrats
so in the end Bloomberg did their bidding and nothing really changed in NYC except it got more expensive for poor and middle class to live here.
I think Bloomberg was a putz, but the plutocrat adopted a strategy of not fucking up what he was handed, one of the safest major cities in America.
A very strong anti-immigration stance can get you wins in some primaries, and Trump is perfectly positioned to take advantage up that because he doesn't give a rat's ass right now about moderates, or Democrats, or independents or Hispanics. And in the general election, that stance gets you killed--if you make it that far, which he won't.
In the latest NBC News/WSJ poll, 32% favor find and deport, right about at Trump's ceiling. No poll shows a majority agreeing with you or Trump, Eric. And with Trump now wanting to cut back on legal immigration, too, he is going to get a war from the Chamber of Commerce types.
At some point, it isn't going to just be about policy talking points, either. Trump is going to have to show actual knowledge of policy and modern political history, and he can't learn any of that quickly enough. Link - ( New Window )
if the Obama supporter money is already going to commie Bernie, than he is already sold into the most utterly breathtaking hypocracy you will ever see.
which should not be surprising, since that is what they do.
Trump was asked how he will deport illegal immigrant children... Â
His attack on birthright citizenship ignores the critical milestone that was the 14th Amendment in treating African Americans as people and not property.
The support for Trump by some "conservatives" is curious because I doubt Trump has much respect for the Constitution. The same Republicans who chide Obama for his "Imperial Presidency" (and not without good cause) don't think Trump would be an "Imperial President"? He'd walk all over the Constitution too.
Time. Once other candidates drop out of the race, the support will be distributed more against Trump than for Trump. Trump has the lead right now because he is still talking in shallow waters among 17 total candidates and currently has the most people who consider him their favorite.
But as the field shrinks, and the questions and examinations become more specific and focused, and when "electability" becomes a more prominent factor, Trump will fade away.
His attack on birthright citizenship ignores the critical milestone that was the 14th Amendment in treating African Americans as people and not property.
I do think it needs to be looked at. This is being abused by not only those coming over the border, but there is actually birth tourism where pregnant women come here from Asia and stay to give birth so their kid is an American citizen and then they also can stay. Oh, and they also go to a hospital and pay nothing for the care they get there. Link - ( New Window )
"“Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.”
Sorry but Trump is exactly correct the drive for more H-1B Visa's isn't because of labor shortage it is about driving the cost of developers down.
That Trump stands no chance at ultimately winning the nomination (and will eventually run as a 3rd party, but that's another matter). With that said however, there are a couple things worth noting that give me at least a seconds worth of pause....
1) in each poll that comes out, those favorability/unfavorability raings continue to inch their way upward and expand where you think his ceiling can be. I just saw a CNN/ORC poll today that put his favorability up to 60% among republicans. The recent FOX poll had 52% or republicans saying he wasn't qualified to be president. That was around 80% a couple months ago.
2) I am wholly unimpressed by the political skills of his competition, and his presence in this race makes their boring/charisma-less presence stand out even more. Jeb Bush is a total stiff, he may be more qualified than his brother but he's not half the politician. Scott Walker is bland as it gets. Carson the same. Ted Cruz is obnoxious and loud, but not necessarily skillful in the way I mean. I think Marco Rubio has some skills but he just isn't catching on with republican voters it seems. The force of Trumps personality just overshadows this field, I can't peg the one I see them rallying around.
That Trump stands no chance at ultimately winning the nomination (and will eventually run as a 3rd party, but that's another matter). With that said however, there are a couple things worth noting that give me at least a seconds worth of pause....
1) in each poll that comes out, those favorability/unfavorability raings continue to inch their way upward and expand where you think his ceiling can be. I just saw a CNN/ORC poll today that put his favorability up to 60% among republicans. The recent FOX poll had 52% or republicans saying he wasn't qualified to be president. That was around 80% a couple months ago.
2) I am wholly unimpressed by the political skills of his competition, and his presence in this race makes their boring/charisma-less presence stand out even more. Jeb Bush is a total stiff, he may be more qualified than his brother but he's not half the politician. Scott Walker is bland as it gets. Carson the same. Ted Cruz is obnoxious and loud, but not necessarily skillful in the way I mean. I think Marco Rubio has some skills but he just isn't catching on with republican voters it seems. The force of Trumps personality just overshadows this field, I can't peg the one I see them rallying around.
still very early in the game. Remember Hermain Cain?
I'm going to vote for her, but damn Hillary continues to be so bad. Anyone see her trying to deliver that snap chat joke the other day? Cringeworthy execution. She is just so lucky she has a free ride in the primary and a big demographic edge in the general, because she's just not good at this campaigning game. The idea of her candidacy has always been better on paper than in practice. She has already lost once as a big favorite because she wasn't built for this. If Elizabeth Warren was in this race she would murder her
These Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman comparisons to Trump that people keep making are total false equivalences for a number of reasons. Neither was ever in as good a spot as Trump has been for any real span of time, Trump has led for 2 months by growing margins. Neither possessed any ability to take a punch and their candidacies crumbled at the first scrutiny. Neither ever possessed such huge leads in certain key topics like "dealing with the economy" where Trump has like a 35 point edge on the next closest polling republican, Trump kills it in that area even amongst people who don't like him
I don't think he will win the nomination but he has already separated himself from the again and Bachman comparisons
that I or anyone else has seen in their lifetime. Will it last? I don't know.
Will it grow? I don't know. Can he he be taken down? I don't know.I do know that the people of this country to a large extent are fed up with politics as usual and are looking for something.Is Donald Trump that something? I don't know
that I or anyone else has seen in their lifetime. Will it last? I don't know.
Will it grow? I don't know. Can he he be taken down? I don't know.I do know that the people of this country to a large extent are fed up with politics as usual and are looking for something.Is Donald Trump that something? I don't know
Unless it's lasts until the convention it's nothing more novel than McCarthy in '68, McGovern in '72 or Carter in '76. In fact until the election debates next year it's not too different from Perot in '92.
Trump can take popular positions that others can't Â
It's part of what makes him so dangerous to the party. Trump isn't dependent upon the establishment for money or attention so he can say whatever he wants even if it pisses him off and it allows him to say things that appeal to the base but not to the elites.
Two examples:
Immigration - This is the most well known since it's his primary position. After the 2012 election the Republican leaders tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform to take it off the table but they folded in the face of a revolt by the base. They know that this immigration talk dooms their chances in this election cycle but there's nothing they can do about it. At first the candidates were trying to toe the line but now that Trump has started throwing red meat all over the place this plan is falling apart.
Entitlements - This is the bigger deal since this is THE issue that matters most to the donors. They want entitlement cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, etc) and tax cuts for themselves. This is the position that has to be toed by all candidates if they want any money. The problem is that most Republicans don't actually want to cut entitlements. Normally this isn't an issue since no candidate will go against donors on this issue. Trump isn't afraid to defend the entitlements and that will be a popular position.
This dynamic makes him very different than candidates like Cain, Bachmann or whatever looney flavor of the month has come before. While people pretend that it's his bluster that's popular, it's actually his positions that are popular.
A very strong anti-immigration stance can get you wins in some primaries, and Trump is perfectly positioned to take advantage up that because he doesn't give a rat's ass right now about moderates, or Democrats, or independents or Hispanics. And in the general election, that stance gets you killed--if you make it that far, which he won't.
In the latest NBC News/WSJ poll, 32% favor find and deport, right about at Trump's ceiling. No poll shows a majority agreeing with you or Trump, Eric. And with Trump now wanting to cut back on legal immigration, too, he is going to get a war from the Chamber of Commerce types.
At some point, it isn't going to just be about policy talking points, either. Trump is going to have to show actual knowledge of policy and modern political history, and he can't learn any of that quickly enough. Link - ( New Window )
Who says? This stuff about candidates having to be policy wonks started when Clinton was running and the pundits and media were so enamored about his thoughts on policy. I don't think anyone ever accused FDR or Truman or JFK or LBJ of being policy wonks.
Timing is everything and Trump is benefiting from timing. The pundits and media who love these policy debates have beclowned and discredited themselves for a few years now and the news is filled with the stumbles and trips of government. It may be that broad policy statements and the promise of administrative ability are enough.
he ran as an Independent from day one in Feb 1992 when he announced.I don't remember an outsider in my lifetime dominate the
polls of an established party for 2 months.
Not only is he #1 nationally, but you break down each issue individually and he is leading in most of them too, some by huge margins. 45% of all republicans think he would be the best for the economy, no one else cracking 10%. That's a massive edge. They also have him as the best candidate to combat Isis, the best on immigration, the best on social issues. The biggest thing is though his favorability rating overall continues to climb, and his ceiling seems to be climbing with it. He's at about 60% favorability among republicans now, that was in the 20s when he first started this.
you might not be aware of and it keeps republican Campaign Managers up at night is that he is targeting non traditional voters with his ground team. People who are eligible to vote, but do not come election day. ALL of these polls are taken with Registered voters that are LIKELY to vote, disregarding a huge unpolled constituency. His lead might be bigger
Trump has a strong, passionate base it appears.. Â
Yes but last I saw she was 4% behind Jeb and 2% behind Rubio (head to head) - think that was 2 days ago. I don't remember which polling company, but it was a major one.
His first sit down interview with a journalist since the campaign began and it's excellent. It's bizarre but I find myself thinking "Maybe he is just what this country needs..."
this is just a product of an insanely long campaign period for President. The election isn't for another 15 months and the R Convention isn't for another 11 months.
Just give it time for the crazy to settle, and for other candidates to drop out. When that happens, then the other candidates and the Koch money will start targeting Trump and holding his feet to the fire to be a real candidate. It will become clear that he is not only unfit, but that he has no real solutions.
this is just a product of an insanely long campaign period for President. The election isn't for another 15 months and the R Convention isn't for another 11 months.
Just give it time for the crazy to settle, and for other candidates to drop out. When that happens, then the other candidates and the Koch money will start targeting Trump and holding his feet to the fire to be a real candidate. It will become clear that he is not only unfit, but that he has no real solutions.
I share the same assumption that ultimately some measure of fatigue or scandal or what have you will doom Trump. But this election cycle is playing to his strengths because EVERYONE SUCKS. Hillary is a wretched candidate and the future of her scandals is unknown, but there isn't another viable candidate who even starts to bring together the various Democratic constituencies. The presumptive frontrunner for the GOP, Jeb, has zero magnetism and his very name hearkens back to one of the darker few years in our recent past. The only guy in the field I really like, Rubio, seems to hold a position on abortion that is to the right of a good bit of his party, much less the electorate as a whole. Everyone is by some measure canned, corrupt and/or pandering to the denizens of faculty lounges or talk radio. Trump sucks, but Trump's whole candidacy is centered around an idea that is being reinforced daily - that the respective Party establishments are rotten to the core.
Three months ago I had the same reaction. I didn't watch Celebrity Apprentice but I watched his show on the Golf Channel from is Doral
Country Club in Miami. He would do a round with athletes, entertainers
and he came off as a real nice guy and his guests loved him. When he decided to run, I thought he wasn't serious. Then I really started to listen and read what he is saying. The Obama birther nonsense aside, I started to think this makes sense on some of what he was saying. Is he the guy to get to do what I like? I don't know, but I am not treating him as a sideshow
in the Hollywood Reporter shows Trump for what he is: a smart guy who needs to tell the world how impressive he is, who cares way more about style over substance.
"But I have gained such respect for the people that like me and respect me and that like my views, it's incredible."
"Trump then calls me over: "Janice! You got to see this woman!" he says, motioning to a female dressed in a suit sitting next to the "richest man." It's never explained to me whether she is his wife or colleague. I don't know if she understands what is being said. "Isn't she beautiful? Beautiful!" he continues as she stands expressionless. "This is your business to know these things," he says to me, as an editor. "Just look at her!""
"And then beautiful Kate [Steinle] was killed "
"I'm not surprised at the ratings. I just think it wouldn't interest you. I knew him a little bit when Bruce was a great athlete. He was one of the best-looking people you'll ever see."
"I've got a net worth of more than $10 billion."
"When will you get Melania out there talking about you?
Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style"
"ne of the reasons I tell people about my level of intelligence — like, for instance, I had an uncle, Dr. John Trump, who was at MIT, like totally brilliant, became a professor at MIT — "
" I have an income of over $400 million a year. "
"Eventually, HBO will do a movie about this election. Who should play you?
Somebody really, really handsome. That's the only thing that matters. I don't care if he can act well. He's got to be really, really good-looking. OK?"
Supporters like Headhunter seem to have no idea what damage Trump will take once the big guns start taking him on directly through media buys. Teflon Don will look like Denzel Washington at the end of Training Day.
Three months ago I had the same reaction. I didn't watch Celebrity Apprentice but I watched his show on the Golf Channel from is Doral
Country Club in Miami. He would do a round with athletes, entertainers
and he came off as a real nice guy and his guests loved him. When he decided to run, I thought he wasn't serious. Then I really started to listen and read what he is saying. The Obama birther nonsense aside, I started to think this makes sense on some of what he was saying. Is he the guy to get to do what I like? I don't know, but I am not treating him as a sideshow
I have to admit, I saw him on the helicopter with the kids and one kid asked him if he was Superman, and he said 'yeah, I'm Superman'. He was great with the kids. I honestly think he's like all the people who are pissed off about what has been going on in the country and he thinks he can fix it. He doesn't need the attention and let's face it, it will be a huge pay cut for him.
But I still can't forgive him for his horrible comments about the Yankees a few years ago.
As a pretty liberal guy he's the only GOP candidate, other than Huntsman, that I've ever really considered voting for. I guess most Repubs here will say it's because he's not a true Republican which is maybe valid. But couldn't you have said the same thing about Reagan 40 years ago or whatever?
Either way, I think he has broad appeal across party lines in ways that someone like Jeb, Rubio or Walker don't.
At this point, I'd be taking him seriously if I'm a Republican or even Hillary.
from both sides R & D do you think is going to hurt him? All going negative on him will do is reenforce his support. Anecdotal story from
one of the reporters following his campaign.Reporter asks a Conservative Republican women who is a 1 issue voter and that is abortion, nothing else matters. The reporter asked her how could she support Trump knowing he was Pro Choice? Her answer " Nobody's perfect"You keep waiting for his fall
For some reason people look past some of the issues with him. For example, so many of policies are insane and go against everything I believe in but I find myself justifying them with "He's not actually going to build a wall" or "I can look past that issue if he can break the partisan gridlock and clean up the mess."
Supporters like Headhunter seem to have no idea what damage Trump will take once the big guns start taking him on directly through media buys. Teflon Don will look like Denzel Washington at the end of Training Day.
Whistling past the graveyard. He's been in the public eye shooting his mouth off for over 30 years. What could the "big guns" possibly say about him that hasn't been said already? And he's had a ton of experience with media and journalists.
Timing is everything and he definitely benefits from timing. I don't quite believe it myself, but he seems to be sticking around.
Jessie Ventura Endorses Donald Trump, Wants To Be His Running Mate Â
Ventura went on to explain that he believes that Trump is a wild card who may be corrupt, but at least is not under the control of the ruling class and politicians.
“These insiders to our government, you’re right Roger, Trump has scared the hell out of them, because as you said, they can’t control him,” Ventura said.
Either way, politics is a joke, and hopefully, Donald Trump is helping the average American to realize that fact.
from both sides R & D do you think is going to hurt him? All going negative on him will do is reenforce his support.
The RNC is even more ruthless than Trump is. If they feel REALLY threatened by him he's never seen anything like what they'll throw at him. I'm sure there will be closed door discussions between them before anything like that happens. After all, thousands of people get appointed to jobs in each new administration. Trump doesn't have the resources or pool of people to do that staffing with "non-politicians". The bulk of those jobs will go to establishment R's. That in addition to the entrenched career bureaucracy. Making the needle point in a new direction isn't as easy as he'll make it sound. The ship pretty much runs on autopilot.
Bottom line, for the RNC, the only important thing Â
to articulate ideas matters--too wonkish--remember the first Obama/Romney debate? Obama came out flat as a pancake, and got killed, and all of a sudden Romney was up in the polls. Then, Obama began to take the debates seriously, and handed Romney his ass, even though it didn't look that way immediately.
As far as what people do or don't know about Trump, eventual voters are very cavalier about actual policy positions 15 months out. Despite illusions to the contrary, that doesn't last. People who hate abortion won't support a candidate with a pro-life position, even if they think he's sorta nice and sorta smart 15 months out. Same on a whole host of other issues, including fiscal conservatism and immigration policy.
You don;t have to be a wonk to articulate a view. But you have to be articulate enough on policies to present a view: This will matter when the field gets whittled down.
And for those who don't think attack ads will work against Trump, I still believe strongly that when literally hundreds of millions are spent to define him from without, he will fall flat as a pancake. No one is doing ads against him right now, because no one wants to spend money that way with 16 other candidates in the field. That will change, guaranteed.
Of course, the other thing keeping Trump strong is that ALL of the Republican candidates have warts from the viewpoint of much of the Republican base. And those warts grow into tumors when you move past the base. The possible exception is Kasich, and I doubt he ever gets enough traction within the base. A couple of writers are beginning to say "watch out for Cruz." That would be a disaster in the general election, but might actually make sense in the primaries, at least for a while. Walker is fading fast. That leaves King Bush the Bland.
is a Matt Labash tag-along piece from The Weekly Standard. Some of his send-ups of guys like Ward Churchill and Stephen Baldwin have been amazing. Trump's would be a must-read.
According to PPP, Trump leads the GOP with moderates, 'somewhat conservative voters,' 'very conservative voters,' men, women, middle-aged voters, younger voters, and seniors.
See full poll results here.
Jeb Bush is polling at 13 percent, Ted Cruz at ten percent, Mark Rubio at nine percent, and six percent each for Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker.
The survey shows Hillary Clinton is still leading with Democrats in North Carolina at 55 percent. Bernie Sanders is trailing Clinton with 19 percent.
Public Policy Polling revealed independent candidate Deez Nuts is polling at nine percent in N.C.
Public Policy Polling surveyed 957 voters from Aug. 12 to Aug. 16, including 477 Democratic primary voters and 406 Republican primary voters. The margin of error for the overall survey is +/-3.2 percent.
again I agree with you. On the surface I would think that Trump would be someone that I'd never agree with politically. But the more I listen, the more he boosts the greatness of America and that he is beholden to no one and the other professional pols make me vomit in my mouth
with their poll diven focus group tested stump speeches. Trump lets it fly and some of it is contradicting and down right silly, but he doesn't hold back and is telling how he truly feels. I'm sick of Washington and both parties produce the same shit.
It's a different time. The pundits and the anchor types who are the ones gung ho for policy proposals and wonkery have lost a lot of credibility. I don't think they are going to have enough influence to demand that level of depth.
The Dems have their own problems and risks. What are they going to do if they lose Hilary? They are looking at an old white man from a tiny state in the Northeast who can't or won't fundraise for big dollars or the former mayor of Baltimore. At that point, they have to draft Biden who went down in flames to both Palin and the nerd but might be the only guy who could out-Trump Trump and wouldn't be afraid to fund raise.
I thought it was Christies hug after Sandy, or any one of a billion other bullshit reasons the right blames for losing elections without having to actually come to grips with the fact that it's because this is clearly a center-left nation at this point, and that shows up in high turnout elections like in a presidential cycle. 5 of 6 and the inside (early track) on another when it comes to the popular vote. That's a generation of domination. And the demographics are only getting worse.
I thought it was Christies hug after Sandy, or any one of a billion other bullshit reasons the right blames for losing elections without having to actually come to grips with the fact that it's because this is clearly a center-left nation at this point, and that shows up in high turnout elections like in a presidential cycle. 5 of 6 and the inside (early track) on another when it comes to the popular vote. That's a generation of domination. And the demographics are only getting worse.
Every decade or so pundits forecast the demise of one party or the permanency of another, and it hasn't happened for a long time. "The country is center left!" "Conservatives have more kids!" "Immigrants vote Democrat!" After the disaster of 2008 if you told the Republicans they'd have both houses in 2015 and a fighting chance at the election next year they'd be overjoyed.
Gerrymandering and lower turnout will always leave the republicans competitive in off years and mid terms. But when it comes to winning the presidency it is going to take a special set of circumstances. It's not impossible, but for a generation now when we go to the booth in our highest turnout cycles to pick presidents.... more of us are picking the democrat. 5 of 6 now and the betting line favorite in 2016 too. This country is center left. Any notion to the contrary is wildly outdated.
I think most of us agree it was good to see Frank Luntz called an ignorant fat slob by Roger Stone. If there is 1 guy who built a business on bullshit, it is Frank Luntz
Gerrymandering and lower turnout will always leave the republicans competitive in off years and mid terms. But when it comes to winning the presidency it is going to take a special set of circumstances. It's not impossible, but for a generation now when we go to the booth in our highest turnout cycles to pick presidents.... more of us are picking the democrat. 5 of 6 now and the betting line favorite in 2016 too. This country is center left. Any notion to the contrary is wildly outdated.
And Republicans have won 5/9 presidential elections. Social issues are certainly trending leftward, but outside of gay rights many of them were actually moving in the opposite direction until a few years ago. Making definitive predictions about our political future is a fool's errand.
You could not possibly make a more irrelevant point Â
Then going back to Reagan and Bush 41 and comparing the electorate of that time period to now. It was almost a completely different country with how small the non white portion of the electorate was. Not to mention a good deal of those voters are even dead by now. There is no putting a positive spin on losing 5 of 6 popular votes and being the party of almost exclusively white people in an electorate that gets less white every cycle. It's not a position that is sustainable
Then going back to Reagan and Bush 41 and comparing the electorate of that time period to now. It was almost a completely different country with how small the non white portion of the electorate was. Not to mention a good deal of those voters are even dead by now. There is no putting a positive spin on losing 5 of 6 popular votes and being the party of almost exclusively white people in an electorate that gets less white every cycle. It's not a position that is sustainable
So 1992 is relevant but 1988 is? You're arbitrarily drawing lines to make your point.
The support for Trump by some "conservatives" is curious because I doubt Trump has much respect for the Constitution. The same Republicans who chide Obama for his "Imperial Presidency" (and not without good cause) don't think Trump would be an "Imperial President"? He'd walk all over the Constitution too.
"Imperial Presidency" (and not without good cause)... Seriously? In what way.
I'm just gonna chalk this up as some sort of coping mechanism Â
Because there is no way in the world to put a positive spin on losing 5 of 6 popular votes. Certainly not by harkening back to cycles where the electorate was 85+% white, which is absolutely nothing like the country is today. You are absolutely delusional if you don't think the current demographics are wildly problematic for republicans as the party currently stands
The economy and Bush popularity made 2008 almost unwinnable for the Republicans. Incumbancy factor and Romney running a poor campaign gave the Democrats 2012.
If they could push forward a quality candidate, the trend would probably reverse.
My $0.02.
RE: Bottom line, for the RNC, the only important thing Â
Because there is no way in the world to put a positive spin on losing 5 of 6 popular votes. Certainly not by harkening back to cycles where the electorate was 85+% white, which is absolutely nothing like the country is today. You are absolutely delusional if you don't think the current demographics are wildly problematic for republicans as the party currently stands
I am well aware of where the demographics are and where they're likely heading, where social issues are polling among younger people, etc etc. I am also well aware of the fate of prognostications.
RE: For those of you who don't think that the capacity... Â
to articulate ideas matters--too wonkish--remember the first Obama/Romney debate? Obama came out flat as a pancake, and got killed, and all of a sudden Romney was up in the polls. Then, Obama began to take the debates seriously, and handed Romney his ass, even though it didn't look that way immediately.
That "zinger" about Russia and the 80's proved incredibly prescient. The media loved it, however, so I guess he did win.
he put the kid gloves back on, he should have went for the jugular. But that wasn't what his campaign wanted. People sensed that.
You want to talk about trends? People are pissed off. White people, old people, conservatives, religious people, fly over people. Many of the ones who stayed home in 2012, but came out in 2014. They are responding to Trump. And they care less about policy than about how pissed off they are.
Its probably the ultimate virtue of a two party system: after a thumping, the losing party must change to capture more votes, and they only have to look for votes in one place, the opposition.
Gerrymandering and lower turnout will always leave the republicans competitive in off years and mid terms. But when it comes to winning the presidency it is going to take a special set of circumstances. It's not impossible, but for a generation now when we go to the booth in our highest turnout cycles to pick presidents.... more of us are picking the democrat. 5 of 6 now and the betting line favorite in 2016 too. This country is center left. Any notion to the contrary is wildly outdated.
Its probably the ultimate virtue of a two party system: after a thumping, the losing party must change to capture more votes, and they only have to look for votes in one place, the opposition.
The issue this time around has much more to do with demographics. The Republican Party drifted too far from where the beliefs and values of most Americans have evolved - polling and surveys show the country as sitting center-left, while the Republican Party has really gone to the fringe - honestly, the Democratic Party doesn't even really represent the base - also situated slightly to the right, policy-wise.
As stated above - Gerrymandering only goes so far. Demographics and the shrinking-white old guy base is bringing a day of reckoning - if not 2016, then certainly by 2020. Hell, some of the key Red States are turning blue as northerners migrate south and as the Hispanic demographic grows.
learns how to earn the female vote, they can get back in it for a long time. Conceding women's issues to women would allow them to maintain most of their core principles.
Trump, sexist as he is, certainly seems more capable of this than the other candidates.
learns how to earn the female vote, they can get back in it for a long time. Conceding women's issues to women would allow them to maintain most of their core principles.
Trump, sexist as he is, certainly seems more capable of this than the other candidates.
Abortion will not go away as an issue anytime soon, and if the Republican Party stops at least paying lip service to it they will face a 3rd party challenge. It's that simple.
Conceding the last of the social triad - women's issues - will amount to a significant transformation. Focus on taxes/budget/foreign policy.
It's too big an issue for too many people. A solid quarter or so of the electorate thinks it is THE abiding moral stain on the country. It's not like gay rights; opposition to that lingers but it is likely relatively transient.
What happened after debate 1 was more about Obama waking up than it was about Romney slacking off. Incumbents usually suck and are rusty in that first debate against an opponent who has just been through a primary and were sharpening their sword for that moment. Obama wasn't even great after that debate, it was more about just showing a pulse. In round 1 it was almost like he was trying to come off too cool for school and not even dignify Romney as much of a challenge. Romney won on shear energy, not on ideas.
I believe if I'm not mistaken, states worth 240 electoral votes have gone to dems in 6 straight cycles now. Fair to call those states firmly blue when they go one way for a quarter century straight, although there is always a chance one or two may flip. But that almost puts them at the 270 needed off the bat. Republicans have to dominate the swing states
Let women speak and represent themselves. Get those pastey old white guys off TV if they start talking about what women can or can't do as if they are some moral authority. They just lose massive numbers of votes.
As far as a quarter of the electorate, thats a problem thats hard to address in a two-party system....if GOP keeps that, they automatically lose an equal or greater amount....having a party hamstrung isn't good for anybody. Better competition breeds better candidates. Probably one reason why HRC keeps her apologists. She so obviously sucks, but still looks like she can win. Its pitiful.
Let women speak and represent themselves. Get those pastey old white guys off TV if they start talking about what women can or can't do as if they are some moral authority. They just lose massive numbers of votes.
As far as a quarter of the electorate, thats a problem thats hard to address in a two-party system....if GOP keeps that, they automatically lose an equal or greater amount....having a party hamstrung isn't good for anybody. Better competition breeds better candidates. Probably one reason why HRC keeps her apologists. She so obviously sucks, but still looks like she can win. Its pitiful.
Er, you just went on about how women will vote and you want to tell me to let them speak for themselves? And then you rant about pastey old white guys telling women what to do?
And many women, and male moderates and liberals, consider this a women's rights issue.
See: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many others. End runs on a women's right to choose is considered a women's issue by many women. So is gutting access to women's health care centers. So is access to Plan B contraceptives, and personhood amendments, and refusals to permit abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
Look, I am not suggesting that anyone agree with the liberal side on these issues. All I am saying is that pro-choice women, plus those who believe in limited exceptions, plus those who are concerned about women's health centers, plus women who recognize that personhood amendments severely limit contraception and eliminate in vitro fertilization consider this stuff a big deal. Telling a woman that this isn't a women's issue when she believes it is doesn't help you politically.
And the pay gap issue is real; conservative propaganda to the contrary. (Link) Link - ( New Window )
And many women, and male moderates and liberals, consider this a women's rights issue.
See: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many others. End runs on a women's right to choose is considered a women's issue by many women. So is gutting access to women's health care centers. So is access to Plan B contraceptives, and personhood amendments, and refusals to permit abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
Look, I am not suggesting that anyone agree with the liberal side on these issues. All I am saying is that pro-choice women, plus those who believe in limited exceptions, plus those who are concerned about women's health centers, plus women who recognize that personhood amendments severely limit contraception and eliminate in vitro fertilization consider this stuff a big deal. Telling a woman that this isn't a women's issue when she believes it is doesn't help you politically.
And the pay gap issue is real; conservative propaganda to the contrary. (Link) Link - ( New Window )
These are not issues that a President decides- if they were, Obama would have already done it. The remedies are legislative and judicial. You can say a President appoints SC justices, but the Court remains unfortunately a political entity and it's not going to regress on these issues to any place where the American public is not, regardless of who makes the appointments.
RE: Many state have awful records on women's health... Â
And many women, and male moderates and liberals, consider this a women's rights issue.
I've said all along that is going to be a HUGE Women's rights election, and while I shouldn't be - I AM surprised to see the Republicans already starting fires - going after Planned Parenthood?
OK - yeah - excellent strategy.
Women won both of Obama's elections - 2008: 56% Obama, 43% McCain... 2012: 55% Obama, 44% Romney.
You've almost definitely got Hillary Clinton running as the Democrat Nominee.
Yeah, keep attacking women's rights. Good luck with that.
RE: Many state have awful records on women's health... Â
Yet, we watched a stage of men state that they support banning abortions for incest and rape and at any point, in fact.
I am amazed that the R's can't get this right. It would just take the kind of response like JFK gave- "My personal religious beliefs tell me that abortion, regardless of the circumstances, is the taking of an innocent life, but as President of all the people, my public policy would be to accept exceptions for rape and incest as the overwhelming majority of citizens want" End of story
that to win national elections, they needed to make significant inroads with Hispanics and women.
Here we are 3 years later & their leading candidate is talking about 'Mexican rapists', an end to birthright ciizenship for illegal immigrants, & building a wall on the southern boader that, oh yeah, Mexico is going to pay for.
And then he insinuates Megyn Kelly had her period during the first GOP debate.
He is also controlling the discussion, having candidates either agree or repudiate what he's saying.
I don't know how long he'll be around for, but I think the idea that he's a fad is yesterday's news.
The Democrats have problems-HRC continues to get bogged down in his this email fiasco of her own making. And who the hell knows where it goes?
But the GOP needs to get The Donald under control.
my public policy would be to accept exceptions for rape and incest as the overwhelming majority of citizens want"
Actually a majority of Americans are pro choice but Republicans never let silly things like facts get in the way of their mythical Right Center Nation
Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years - ( New Window )
Actually, according to your link, a plurality of Americans are pro-choice. If you want to know what a majority of Americans believe, you can got to this link:
"A new survey of Americans finds strong support for abortion restrictions – including among those who identify as “strongly pro-choice.” Eighty-four percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, with 58 percent of strongly pro-choice Americans supporting such limits.
The Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll also found that almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) favor a ban on abortions after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, a majority of Americans (53 percent) believe life begins at conception, and more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) think abortion is morally wrong." Link - ( New Window )
He's awesome. I would never vote for him and think he's an ass, but I love the theater of a presidential election cycle, and he is by far the best personality in this field from that standpoint. I also find his level of narcissism a very interesting study to watch on display, and I don't even mean that as some sort of wise ass insult.
that to win national elections, they needed to make significant inroads with Hispanics and women.
Here we are 3 years later & their leading candidate is talking about 'Mexican rapists', an end to birthright ciizenship for illegal immigrants, & building a wall on the southern boader that, oh yeah, Mexico is going to pay for.
And then he insinuates Megyn Kelly had her period during the first GOP debate.
He is also controlling the discussion, having candidates either agree or repudiate what he's saying.
I don't know how long he'll be around for, but I think the idea that he's a fad is yesterday's news.
The Democrats have problems-HRC continues to get bogged down in his this email fiasco of her own making. And who the hell knows where it goes?
But the GOP needs to get The Donald under control.
Yet Trump is only 6 points behind Hillary in the recent polls.
The Hispanics are never going to go in a majority to the Rs. not now. What the Rs need to do is to get all of their base voters out, the ones that stayed home in 2012. And they are not going to do that pandering to Hispanics. For every one Hispanic vote they may get, they lose 7 base votes. They need stick to their principles and concentrate on their resources on the base.
vidoes are no joke. The last one was, well, enough to make me question being pro-choice. But at the very least this gruesome and horrendous practice of harvesting the freshly killed fetuses has to stop.
He's awesome. I would never vote for him and think he's an ass, but I love the theater of a presidential election cycle, and he is by far the best personality in this field from that standpoint. I also find his level of narcissism a very interesting study to watch on display, and I don't even mean that as some sort of wise ass insult.
MOM, his 'I went to Wharton. That's a pretty smart school' line always cracks me up. As does talking about himself in the third person. He's great entertainment. I can't help but laugh/smile when he talks.
I think W. was a smart dude; one isn't elected & re-elected president if he's an idiot. He mangled the English language, but so did his old man & no one would question 41's intelligence.
But Jeb isn't half the politician his brother is. When The Donald claims that the Jeb audience is asleep, he's right. Jeb keeps talking about how he's running a happy campaign. Huh? He's completely joyless & an absolute stiff.
And he's put his foot in the mouth a lot recently, whether it's phasing out Medicare, that we spend too much money on women's health, & his absurd allegation that everything that happened in Iraq is Obama & Clinton's fault.
Again, I doubt The Donald wins the nomination. In that case, Jeb is probably the favorite. And what a weak candidate he'll be. All the legitimate arguments the GOP will have against HRC-political dynasty, yesterday's news-goes out the window if wannabee 45 is the GOP standard bearer.
It's mathematically impossible to win national elections at this point without hitting certain minimums in the Hispanic vote. Most people who study this paint that number at needing over 40% for the republicans to have a chance. The idea that republicans can stand any chance without making big inroads there is fantasy, and becomes more fantasy with each cycle. There's about 50k Hispanics turning 18 every single month in this country and will continue to be about that rate for decades. That's about 2.5 more million eligible Hispanic voters than existed even in 2012. If republicans don't start making serious progress with Latinos then suddenly places like Texas will turn blue within a few cycles and the republicans may as well just stop nominating people for president
What an entertainer. I'm cracking up. I'd vote for him for the sheer entertainment value of him in the White House if it wasn't so important, but alas it is.
What an entertainer. I'm cracking up. I'd vote for him for the sheer entertainment value of him in the White House if it wasn't so important, but alas it is.
at what point do we say, wow this guy might actually be the nominee? His lead is growing and we are only 4 1/2 months until Iowa.
he still says things like being against raising the minimum wage. He takes positions that aren't popular but isn't afraid to state them. You watch his rally from Mobile Alabama tomorrow. It started off being held in a 1000
seat room moved to a 2000 seat room to a football stadium expecting 40,000. You may think it will be all redneck low information voters, but you would be wrong
my wife who is apolitical as anyone I know told me last night she turned on the set upstairs last night and Trump was on and she says to herself I'm not watching him. But she did and and she loved what he had to say. She doesn't follow politics at all and her eyes roll when I discuss it. But Trump
hit a chord.
RE: There are plenty of successful people who fill the Buffoon Â
He was offered $5million from one of his buddies over the weekend who wanted to get involved and Trump turned him down. He will take small contributions from individuals so they can feel engaged, but he is not taking big money donors or involved with PAC's. That is one of the reasons I like him, you cant buy him, he doesn't owe anyone"favors"
Is he doing that for the reason you lay put? Or more because he knows he will be pulling out of the race within a few weeks? Has he officially filed yet? I know he announced, but I think you get something like 75 days (with all the extensions and grace periods) until you have to officially file the paperwork that makes it official. I have not heard if he has done that yet, until then I am going to assume he is playing at this
michelle bacchman, howard dean and mike Huckabee are all examples of populist candidates that started out with a strong lead in the summer but fizzled once summer ended and the ground game begins and were exposed when the time was right.
Those of you of make the Bachman, Herman Cain, Ross Perot comparison and think this a summer phenomenon just don't get what is happening in the country. You will soon enough, it will play out right in front of your eyes and wonder how you will dismiss him in 6 months?
my wife who is apolitical as anyone I know told me last night she turned on the set upstairs last night and Trump was on and she says to herself I'm not watching him. But she did and and she loved what he had to say. She doesn't follow politics at all and her eyes roll when I discuss it. But Trump
hit a chord.
I think Trump has done a great service by pulling down the curtain on the politically correct class and showing that you can get support by voicing your views, even if they don't fit the narrow scope of what is accepted. However, I am not sure if Trump has the discipline to stay in the race and then actually be President for 4 years and deal with all of it. So I'm not ready to endorse him.
Those of you of make the Bachman, Herman Cain, Ross Perot comparison and think this a summer phenomenon just don't get what is happening in the country. You will soon enough, it will play out right in front of your eyes and wonder how you will dismiss him in 6 months?
is a huge advantage the Dems have had. It's a big reason why Obama was President for 2 terms. I don't think Hillary or Bernie will dominate the youth vote to the same degree as Obama did.
The only chance the Republicans have nationally is if they change recent youth voter trends. They need for either A. less youth voters to show up or B. win a bigger % of the youth vote. Unless that happens, all of this is just a dog and pony show for Hillary's inevitable inauguration.
Silver deals in odds, not odds of odds. What he envisions happening to scenarios in a month or two is already baked into his numbers. In order for his odds to change, you would need incremental movement over what conditions already tell him.
God willing, we willing both be here in 6 months, if we are still talking about DT leading the polls, you are going to have to take him seriously. If he fades and is replaced, I'll concede that I misread the temperature in the room
6 months only gets you to February. All you have in February are the Iowa caucuses, NH primaries, SC primaries and Nevada caucuses. Trump could do well in all four. If he is still strong by then, the establishment and SuperPAC money will come out against him, huge.
March and April are the months that will most whittle down the field. We will see then. I also don't rule out the possibility of Trump surviving, or even leading, until the convention. A brokered convention is a possibility. He would lose that, big time, but the Republicans would be a mess.
Then again, with Hillary getting damaged in the polls, we will know pretty soon whether Biden is jumping in.
I don't like Trump and I hope he crashes and burns Â
But I'm not sure you can make predictions based on the past, because I think the ground is shifting under our feet. Given the fact that the vast majority of you are Democrats, I don't think you understand how much most of the Republican electorate truly despises the leadership of the GOP and most of the GOP candidates. 10 years ago, I would agree with everything people are saying about why Trump's going to flame out soon, but I don't think a lot of old assumptions still hold up.
at a point is overexposure. You cannot watch any of the cable stations today that are not dominated by Trump. There might be a point of diminishing returns and when he hits that point, less might be better than more
RE: I don't like Trump and I hope he crashes and burns Â
But I'm not sure you can make predictions based on the past, because I think the ground is shifting under our feet. Given the fact that the vast majority of you are Democrats, I don't think you understand how much most of the Republican electorate truly despises the leadership of the GOP and most of the GOP candidates. 10 years ago, I would agree with everything people are saying about why Trump's going to flame out soon, but I don't think a lot of old assumptions still hold up.
It's like the French Revolution, without the guillotines.
that it's not worth the political capital to any of them to take Trump head on and it's not worth media time to scrutinize his actual plans. John Kasich, for example, talking about Trump doesn't further highlight Kasich's plans, it only further propels the mythology of Trump.
And that gets you to maybe 30%. Most of the rest care. You think Pro-Life and Tea Party Republicans are going to sit on their hands if this guy still has traction by next March? Beyond his ceiling, media buys matter, and turnout matters. Turnout will kill him when policy-oriented voters start taking notice. The polls don't capture that.
And, as has been said numerous times, no one is shooting hard at Trump yet in a field of 17.
Last time, it was called "Sarah Palin." The media and idiots generally love a sound-bite giving conservative populist whose views would be laughable if the context of a presidential election which is (or at least should be) a serious affair. People will watch and either roll their eyes or (to a lesser extent) enjoy hearing their own views echoed back to them while simultaneously being re-assured with simplistic, but ultimately unrealistic "fixes" to all of their problems.
Ultimately, at the Convention, the pragmatists will win out and either Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich will be nominated but the party will already have sufficiently alienated the Hispanic and middle-ground voters to lose.
last night for instance Jeb Bush had a Town Hall with maybe 200 people and he sounded like a drone. Trump had 1,500+ and 1,000 more outside that couldn't get in and it sounded like a WWE event. You can't poll enthusiasm I dont think
right now are a mix of crazies, people who are happy that his outrage matches their outrage, and people who are persuaded by style over substance.
It's not worth it for the smarter candidates to wrestle in the mud with him and to match his level of crazy outrage because it's not a winning strategy. So it often appears as if Trump is the only one "saying it like it is."
Eventually that will go away when candidates drop out and when the Koch money and other PAC money start going to ads a month or two before elections. Then Trump's won't be the only hard-talking, hard-hitting campaigner.
As of now, Trump still doesn't have enough total support to win the nomination. Again, sprinting the first lap of a marathon.
But I'm not sure you can make predictions based on the past, because I think the ground is shifting under our feet. Given the fact that the vast majority of you are Democrats, I don't think you understand how much most of the Republican electorate truly despises the leadership of the GOP and most of the GOP candidates. 10 years ago, I would agree with everything people are saying about why Trump's going to flame out soon, but I don't think a lot of old assumptions still hold up.
I got involved with the TP in 2010 believing there was a new awakening. Over the next 3 years we never got to represent more than 15% of the Republican vote, so I chucked it all. So it's hard for me to go for the idea that everything has REALLY changed now. It's fascinating to watch. I'd be surprised at pleased if the Establishment doesn't come out on top again. It's just so hard for me to root for Trump, I've disliked him for 25-30 years. My underlying belief is that anyone who would run as a major Party candidate is already too corrupt to vote for.
right now are a mix of crazies, people who are happy that his outrage matches their outrage, and people who are persuaded by style over substance.
It's not worth it for the smarter candidates to wrestle in the mud with him and to match his level of crazy outrage because it's not a winning strategy. So it often appears as if Trump is the only one "saying it like it is."
Eventually that will go away when candidates drop out and when the Koch money and other PAC money start going to ads a month or two before elections. Then Trump's won't be the only hard-talking, hard-hitting campaigner.
As of now, Trump still doesn't have enough total support to win the nomination. Again, sprinting the first lap of a marathon.
We'll see. Not what the political pundits of all ilk are saying. They are surprised at amount of middle and upper middle class that are jumping on the band wagon. Democrats included.
He is the closest to an independent running in a long time and may well end up running that way.
He's going to draw 40,000 in Alabama.
They all are not going to knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
Long, long way to go. Anyone who thinks this isn't great entertainment hasn't been paying attention.
Suppose the incredible happens and he actually wins the whole Â
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
When it gets down to the two party nominees, that will become eminently obvious. It's a big part of why he can't win the actual election. His gobbledygook won't play in one-on-one debates.
And THAT's a big part of why the party will fight hammer and tong to make sure he isn't nominated.
his toxic personality. He gets along great with people, he is a natural born salesman/con man/good Time Charlie that people want to hang with him. He has a short memory and turns enemies into friends,you have to in order to do business, he has that kind of personality that lights up the room, even if you hate him
RE: Suppose the incredible happens and he actually wins the whole Â
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
Good thought because the non-"toxic" personalities we have had have accomplished so much.
Purely anecdotal but I've spoken to a few Dems who'd vote Trump Â
Over Hillary (but not Obama if he were able to run again). I struggle to understand that one except for the possibility that they're just fed up with "old Washington."
There's a lot of frustration with status quo politics that he's tapped into. His ceiling is probably in the 30s but if runs as a third party candidate, that could be enough to influence the entire election and send it to Congress.
his supporters dont care about White Papers and his Policy Papers. You just dont get it and you think along conventional political thought lines.
Exactly. This is a "two chickens in every pot; a car in every garage" campaign, and so far, the discredited news organizations have been unable to force anything more detailed.
I don't think anyone ever came up with a detailed white paper on where the chickens were going to come from, who was paying for the pot, who was going to cook the chickens, what if you didn't have a garage, etc etc etc along with the opposition paper on why it should be game hens instead of chickens, why roasting is a more environmentally sound method of cooking the chicken, who was buying the gas for the car.
You had another good point about enthusiasm. In very low turnout primaries, the person with the most motivated supporters generally does very well.
I could be 100% wrong on this, but my business is reading people and really listening to what they mean, not what they are saying. I get a sense that this all very real for Trump, not that they are necessarily against someone or this is reaction to broken Washington( some of that comes into play)
And I have disliked him for a long time. But I was shocked to find him pretty authentic and pragmatic. He comes off pretty blustery and rubs people the wrong way, but he is not so far off what people on both sides of the aisle could live with....his seemingly insensitive handling of immigration and some other things, notwithstanding.
He doesn't try and speak like a politician, because he isn't and that is clearly resonating with people. Similarly, Bernie comes off as a good person (though he is more of a "politician") in that way as well. I find some of his positions distasteful, though in actuality, they are not as socialist as one would expect, but I am tired of politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear. I am trying to focus on the person more, and the politics less (or as much as I can) this time around.
his toxic personality. He gets along great with people, he is a natural born salesman/con man/good Time Charlie that people want to hang with him. He has a short memory and turns enemies into friends,you have to in order to do business, he has that kind of personality that lights up the room, even if you hate him
I am really starting to see this and believe it. It is an effective method in the business world, and he appears to excel at this greatly. Great point.
He had jury duty this week. You fill out a form that asks for your occupation. He hesitated and thought about, but he couldn't get himself to write the word politician because he hates the thought of being one, so he wrote Real Estate
There's a lot of frustration with status quo politics that he's tapped into. His ceiling is probably in the 30s but if runs as a third party candidate, that could be enough to influence the entire election and send it to Congress.
Nope. Electoral college landslide for the Dems.
He's got more power and control than he ever dreamed of Â
With his ability to run as a third party candidate and totally crush GOPs chances for the White House, he doesn't have to bow to any party politics. ANd he doesn't need their money. If they try to swift boat him, he can get the ultimate revenge. What a great place to be in.
Like others have said, I don't like him, but I'm happy he's having this monet.
to drop out.Money? an ambassadorship? a cabinet post? pay no taxes for the rest of his life and his children's lives? What could they try to buy him with?
RE: RE: Suppose the incredible happens and he actually wins the whole Â
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
Good thought because the non-"toxic" personalities we have had have accomplished so much.
As bad as it's been, I kinda think it can always get worse. He can talk until he's blue in the face about building a wall and deporting people, but the only way that gets done is by having a working relationship with congress, and needing them to want to buy in to what he's selling. The last 8 years have seen a lot of do-nothing precisely because of one party sniping at the other or trying to play defense against things getting done. He can run on a platform of being the guy that tells it like it is, but pissing off the room because he has no filter is not the way to get things done the way the system is set up.
if it ever came to a President Trump and him being stymied by Congress, I see him holding many news conferences naming names of those who are flat out obstructionists in both parties and good luck to them when they come up for reelection. Actions have consequences
RE: I dont see what they could possibly offer him Â
to drop out.Money? an ambassadorship? a cabinet post? pay no taxes for the rest of his life and his children's lives? What could they try to buy him with?
The Presidency ages you by about 20 years. With his ego, maybe he's not willing to accept that
if it ever came to a President Trump and him being stymied by Congress, I see him holding many news conferences naming names of those who are flat out obstructionists in both parties and good luck to them when they come up for reelection. Actions have consequences
from the Trump haters. Putting his at times loathsome personality aside, what part of his politics do you not like or disagree with ?
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
but living in NYC his whole life and doing business from there he had to support a ton of Democrats with money which he admits to. You are in business, in order to get things done you have to grease the wheels. He knows that if you put $5million in a PAC you are expecting something down the road if you get elected. He wont take the money because there are always strings attached and he is no ones puppet. He pulls the strings, not the other way around
from the Trump haters. Putting his at times loathsome personality aside, what part of his politics do you not like or disagree with ?
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
Aside from him not having real answers and mostly having arrogant bluster? Why would you vote for him? He certainly hasn't demonstrated that--even if you guys out there who are believers in "The world is too PC!!!", have to admit that anybody can say that--doesn't make you a good president.
The presidency is a step down for him. Think about it, he gets to fly all over the world in his own private jet, he stays in the best properties in the world, he eats the best food on the planet, he is the boss of thousands of employees and doesnt have to get get anyone's OK to get anything done. He truly feels that the country is going in the wrong direction and he can set it in the right direction at the expense of a great lifestyle
if it ever came to a President Trump and him being stymied by Congress, I see him holding many news conferences naming names of those who are flat out obstructionists in both parties and good luck to them when they come up for reelection. Actions have consequences
He'll call them stupid and make fun of them until they concede.
RE: Randy to answer your question the best I can Â
The presidency is a step down for him. Think about it, he gets to fly all over the world in his own private jet, he stays in the best properties in the world, he eats the best food on the planet, he is the boss of thousands of employees and doesnt have to get get anyone's OK to get anything done. He truly feels that the country is going in the wrong direction and he can set it in the right direction at the expense of a great lifestyle
You believe that? If he is REALLY in this (and I believe he isn't), then it is all about ego. I hear a shit-ton of his opinions from a variety of sources and he's a dick.
Fair enough, but I was asking about his politics and platform. He was essentially a life long NY, Moderate Democrat.
I understand that the knock on him is that he doesn't have policies or a platform, but he certainly will soon. I don't fault him for that yet. It's too early and he was a businessman, which is a huge step up over a career politician to me.
You are pointing out the bluster and ego, and I know that is a problem for a lot of people. I concede that and it is a big factor for me as well. What I am wondering, is if you step back and look at where he appears to stand on many of the issues, are his politics acceptable on their own to a large audience ? I am guessing the answer is "yes."
Almost all of us won't be happy with whomever wins the next presidential election. My sense is that politically, he is probably pretty acceptable to a large majority of voters being realistic about finding middle ground. Thoughts ?
RE: Randy to answer your question the best I can Â
The presidency is a step down for him. Think about it, he gets to fly all over the world in his own private jet, he stays in the best properties in the world, he eats the best food on the planet, he is the boss of thousands of employees and doesnt have to get get anyone's OK to get anything done. He truly feels that the country is going in the wrong direction and he can set it in the right direction at the expense of a great lifestyle
yeah, but in 200 years, school kids will be learning about President Trump. No one is going to remember some real estate guy
no doubt he is a dick. But I think he is the kind of dick that you grow to love (NTTAWWT) as you work with him more. I see this happening to me lately. Authenticity goes a long way with me....he just appears to be a natural leader, and his ego is gigantic, but he doesn't appear to have much of a problem finding a way to not take things personally. Unless it's Rosie OD...and I can't fault him for that.
this isn't going to add to his brand, it's not going to get him a nickel more in business. Where he is in life, he can sit back and do anything he wants at anytime he wants anywhere in the world he wants to do it. He feels he is the right guy to change the direction and the clout of the US. As faras being a dick, he might be, but everything I've read and seen is people love hanging out with him, playing golf with him, staying at his properties and partying with him and his wife. He has kids that work and have their heads on straight. I can think of a lot of people that suck more as human beings running for office
no doubt he is a dick. But I think he is the kind of dick that you grow to love (NTTAWWT) as you work with him more. I see this happening to me lately. Authenticity goes a long way with me....he just appears to be a natural leader, and his ego is gigantic, but he doesn't appear to have much of a problem finding a way to not take things personally. Unless it's Rosie OD...and I can't fault him for that.
from the Trump haters. Putting his at times loathsome personality aside, what part of his politics do you not like or disagree with ?
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
Everything about him is repulsive. He runs as the anti-Establishment candidate but everything he accuses the Establishment of doing - whoring themselves to donors - he paid them to do! He supports traditional marriage but he treated marriage as a car lease. He touts his business acumen but the only truly remarkable piece of legacy is his ability to preserve his personal assets through corporate bankruptcy. Evidencing tact and decency in interpersonal relations is not political correctness. And as a billionaire and a recipient of untold government largesse he is a hypocritical populist. So fuck Donald Trump.
we accuse him of whoring to the establishment...as a businessman, what choice did/does he have ? Doesn't mean he agrees with it.
as far as bankruptcy goes, it is completely normal for deals to be put into a corporate structure to ring-fence assets within the deal...so that people cannot come after your other non-deal assets later. this is a basic way of using legal structures to keep people with the biggest pockets from having to commit to more than they wish. if he did something unethical/illegal/fraudulent we should all like to know about it.
he does seem to trade in the wives for hotter, younger ones quite a bit. Not sure that makes him a bad president, or person.
again, what about his actual left/right/middle politics ?
we accuse him of whoring to the establishment...as a businessman, what choice did/does he have ? Doesn't mean he agrees with it.
as far as bankruptcy goes, it is completely normal for deals to be put into a corporate structure to ring-fence assets within the deal...so that people cannot come after your other non-deal assets later. this is a basic way of using legal structures to keep people with the biggest pockets from having to commit to more than they wish. if he did something unethical/illegal/fraudulent we should all like to know about it.
he does seem to trade in the wives for hotter, younger ones quite a bit. Not sure that makes him a bad president, or person.
again, what about his actual left/right/middle politics ?
But he's not running on a nuanced platform, he is running as a personality with some mostly vague references to policy. So the fact that as a person he's a steaming pile of shit is relevant to the inquiry.
businessman so he is guilty of benefiting from the gov't largesse ? is the same true of people on welfare who would rather not work ? it's a crime now to be a successful business person?
thing was nothing more than Real Estate seminars. The birther thing stinks to high heaven, his bankruptcies are perfectly legal if distasteful.
He has warts. I acknowledge his warts, but I like his vision for America more than I'm bothered by his faults.
businessman so he is guilty of benefiting from the gov't largesse ? is the same true of people on welfare who would rather not work ? it's a crime now to be a successful business person?
It is crony capitalism from a guy who wants to be the nominee of a party that at least pretends it supports the free market. And it is not a crime to be successful, but where that success owes in large part to befriending influential politicians you deserve to be skewered for it.
is promoting the name "Trump"-- be it on a building, on a screen, or coming out of as many mouths as possible.
His personality is horrible but even that aside, he doesn't have any policies. Take back manufacturing jobs from China and Mexico? What does that even mean? And if he really believes that, then why are his line of suits made in Mexico and Vietnam?
with those countries. I don't also believe you don't know what bring those jobs back to our country means. There is a point you are trying to make that I don't get
You can like Trump as a vehicle to voice your dissatisfaction.. Â
he keeps saying that we are losing to Mexico and China and that he wants to bring back manufacturing jobs from there to here. I know what all of those words mean, but how does he plan to implement that? And if it is so important to him, then why is his brand outsourcing manufacturing jobs to these very countries?
Two Boston men were charged yesterday in the beating of a homeless Mexican man. The victim was allegedly sleeping outside a subway station when brothers Scott and Steve Leader rummaged through his things, then started beating him around the face and neck and hitting him with a metal pole. One witness heard the brothers laughing as they walked away.
Here's what police say Scott Leader told them to justify the assault: "Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported."
Here's what Donald Trump said when told about the alleged assault (according to the Boston Globe) at a press conference in New Hampshire: "I haven't heard about that. It would be a shame, but I haven't heard about that." Then the crowd buzzed, and Trump added: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it."
businessman so he is guilty of benefiting from the gov't largesse ? is the same true of people on welfare who would rather not work ? it's a crime now to be a successful business person?
That government largess he benefits from comes from laws that he and other large donors have bought off politicians to pass for their purposes.
he gave to Republicans and Democrats because that is how you do business. The thing he wants to do, is change the way things get done. He has hired lobbyists, he knows the game from the inside. Who better to change the way money buys politics than from someone who can't be bought? You tell me
does not have the depth, relationship building abilities or smarts to be president. his solution to dealing with ISIS is "go in there, take em out and take their oil" and with illegal immigration "build a wall on the border and send the bill to mexico". just ridiculous simplistic statements that don't make any sense.
You wrote that, what he said is that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. How he does that he will have to explain. ISIS go in there, take em out and take their oil. Why not take their biggest source of income away from them and destroy the oil fields they control?
Yeah a businessman that lacks those skills may work in Canada, but it in the US it is a career killer
his business career has been spotty - a lot of his companies have been outright failures and have filed for bankruptcy. it's one thing to throw money around to get what you want for land development deals, but a completely different relationship building skill set is needed to broker international deals on both trade and peace issues and manage international relations.
the world is a dangerous place - you can't f**k around with Russia or China. the middle east is constantly unstable. if he practices the bulldozer approach to international situations he's been preaching, the fall out could be disastrous.
the guy is worth a minimum of 2 billion dollars. Which businessman including Jeff Besos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet didn't experience failures?
the guy is worth a minimum of 2 billion dollars. Which businessman including Jeff Besos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet didn't experience failures?
none of them experienced multiple bankruptcies.
net worth does not equal capabilities as a president of a superpower who has the ability to start a nuclear war.
convinced he runs as an independent if it's HRC vs. Bush.
& he's really getting under Bush's skin. Jeb got pretty testy today. I love it.
I don't know the man. I certainly hope there is no collusion with the Clinton campaign. I can't see him running as just a spoiler. He'd have to think he could win to run as an indie. That would be a very high and expensive mountain to climb, without a cadre of seasoned supporters. So I don't see it as likely, but all bets are off with this guy.
Policy analyst I respect suggests this time may be different. Â
Norman Ornstein, whom I really respect, suggests this time may very well be more different than people like 538 are crediting.
Quote:
Most pundits believe that Trump has a ceiling of support around his current levels of roughly 25 percent. But if other insurgents like Cruz and Carson have their own support nearing a combined 25 percent, why can’t Trump potentially garner a solid share of their backing if they falter? Moreover, if Trump does stay at 25 percent well into the primary season, he may well secure a strong plurality of support, with a bunch of other candidates getting 5 to 15 percent, letting him stockpile a number of delegates. And he might be able to win a slew of in states where the minimum threshold for delegates is 20 percent... It is not difficult for me to imagine that Trump, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich and maybe a couple more can stay in the race well into April or later, with no single candidate emerging. Perhaps the Koch brothers and their allied wealthy funders will try to unite behind a single candidate, and force the others out of the race—becoming a surrogate for the RNC and the rest of the party hierarchy. But if they go to Bush, Kasich and Walker, say, and push them to drop out and back their choice of Rubio, why would the others, with just as many delegates and some strong financial backers, listen to them?
This does not mean that we will have the first open convention in 64 years—it would not be a “brokered” convention, by the way, since there are no brokers anymore, but an open and free-wheeling one. There are still solid reasons to believe that there will be coalescence around an establishment figure, even if this one has to veer even more to the radical side than McCain or Romney did. Or there might be, like 1964, a clear nominee from the insurgent side, possibly Trump but also possibly Cruz. But there are also reasons to believe that if either of those scenarios prevailed, it would not be a happy convention. Somewhere near half the delegates will feel jilted, and Cleveland will rock. But there are plenty of historical parallels for that kind of convention, from the Cow Palace in 1964 to Chicago in 1968. History may prove a guide, but it’s no longer clear where it’s pointing.
You wrote that, what he said is that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. How he does that he will have to explain. ISIS go in there, take em out and take their oil. Why not take their biggest source of income away from them and destroy the oil fields they control?
These statements make me wonder if he's serious at all.
This wall. I swear, it's starting to sound like the Berlin Wall. Fuck the wall.
And I can understand the tough guy talk on ISIS... but the "take their oil" - that's new. Usually couched beneath layers of misleading political verbage, Trump just flat comes out and says it. TAKE THEIR OIL.
Yaay.
He doesn't scare me nearly as much as the fact that he has this much support. A movement of Nationalistic, Isolationist, Racist Hawks.
are you talking about? That is the typical knee jerk reaction. I'll bet you a good percentage of his support comes from people who can buy and sell you and have more advanced degrees than your whole circle of friends combined
are you talking about? That is the typical knee jerk reaction. I'll bet you a good percentage of his support comes from people who can buy and sell you and have more advanced degrees than your whole circle of friends combined
Really.
You do understand why they're called the 1%?
The 27% he's getting in the polls isn't coming from the 1%.
the 1% have to do with this? You imply that a lot of dumb and ill educated people form the base of his support. If you wrote that 5 weeks ago, I'd probably agree with you. However, I'm not going to get into with you. Just look a little deeper into his support
RE: build a wall on the border and send the bill to mexico Â
You wrote that, what he said is that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. How he does that he will have to explain. ISIS go in there, take em out and take their oil. Why not take their biggest source of income away from them and destroy the oil fields they control?
I'm sure Mexico is going to open the checkbook for a multibillion dollar project that only benefits the US! Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists!
Iraq controls most of its oil fields, not ISIS - ISIS generates most of its income from ransom money and Syrian oil fields. you bomb the oil fields, you destroy a good chunk of Iraq's economy. not to mention that what rights would the US have to expropriate another sovereign country's resources?
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a "sh*t Trump says" blog.
are you talking about? That is the typical knee jerk reaction. I'll bet you a good percentage of his support comes from people who can buy and sell you and have more advanced degrees than your whole circle of friends combined
Really.
You do understand why they're called the 1%?
The 27% he's getting in the polls isn't coming from the 1%.
Nice try though.
1% doesn't go very far. So by the same logic, they make up even less of Hillary's 47%
Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists! Â
from Trump.The reason we don't care about specifics in part is the attitude we are buying into, make America Great again, don't take shit from those ripping us off, show our enemies that we a force to be dealt with.
RE: Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists! Â
Those good citizens he was referring to are the illegals that commit rape and murder. If you deny it, you live in a fantasy world
most "illegals" are people who escaped poverty and violence in mexico and are taking the menial jobs cleaning dirty toilets and doing manual labor on farms 12 hours a day for less than minimum wage that a lot of ordinary americans shun. are there the odd ones who "rape and murder"? I'm sure. but I have not seen any statistics that demonstrate illegal immigrants commit more rape and murder than US citizens.
from Trump.The reason we don't care about specifics in part is the attitude we are buying into, make America Great again, don't take shit from those ripping us off, show our enemies that we a force to be dealt with.
Really, Steve?
Look we have enough home grown rapists and murderers Â
Norman Ornstein, whom I really respect, suggests this time may very well be more different than people like 538 are crediting.
Quote:
Most pundits believe that Trump has a ceiling of support around his current levels of roughly 25 percent. But if other insurgents like Cruz and Carson have their own support nearing a combined 25 percent, why can’t Trump potentially garner a solid share of their backing if they falter? Moreover, if Trump does stay at 25 percent well into the primary season, he may well secure a strong plurality of support, with a bunch of other candidates getting 5 to 15 percent, letting him stockpile a number of delegates. And he might be able to win a slew of in states where the minimum threshold for delegates is 20 percent... It is not difficult for me to imagine that Trump, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich and maybe a couple more can stay in the race well into April or later, with no single candidate emerging. Perhaps the Koch brothers and their allied wealthy funders will try to unite behind a single candidate, and force the others out of the race—becoming a surrogate for the RNC and the rest of the party hierarchy. But if they go to Bush, Kasich and Walker, say, and push them to drop out and back their choice of Rubio, why would the others, with just as many delegates and some strong financial backers, listen to them?
This does not mean that we will have the first open convention in 64 years—it would not be a “brokered” convention, by the way, since there are no brokers anymore, but an open and free-wheeling one. There are still solid reasons to believe that there will be coalescence around an establishment figure, even if this one has to veer even more to the radical side than McCain or Romney did. Or there might be, like 1964, a clear nominee from the insurgent side, possibly Trump but also possibly Cruz. But there are also reasons to believe that if either of those scenarios prevailed, it would not be a happy convention. Somewhere near half the delegates will feel jilted, and Cleveland will rock. But there are plenty of historical parallels for that kind of convention, from the Cow Palace in 1964 to Chicago in 1968. History may prove a guide, but it’s no longer clear where it’s pointing.
Link - ( New Window )
What Ornstein said that should have been applied to both parties, not just Republicans:
"The desire for an insurgent non-establishment figure is deeper and broader than in the past"
What Ornstein DIDN'T say and should have:
Yes, he's correct that the Republicans, particularly House Republicans, have moved to the right over the last few decades. What he should have added and failed to do so was to say that the Democrats, particularly the House Democrats have similarly moved farther left during that same time period. We would probably disagree about the comparability of each party's drift, but there is no doubt about the movement. What chance would Joe Lieberman have even running for dog catcher in today's Democratic Party?
Also, 2016 really has little resemblance to the '64 election in that LBJ ran uncontested with no server problems as an incumbent. The Kennedy's may have been biting their tongues, but they did not interfere.
RE: RE: build a wall on the border and send the bill to mexico Â
You wrote that, what he said is that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. How he does that he will have to explain. ISIS go in there, take em out and take their oil. Why not take their biggest source of income away from them and destroy the oil fields they control?
I'm sure Mexico is going to open the checkbook for a multibillion dollar project that only benefits the US! Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists!
Iraq controls most of its oil fields, not ISIS - ISIS generates most of its income from ransom money and Syrian oil fields. you bomb the oil fields, you destroy a good chunk of Iraq's economy. not to mention that what rights would the US have to expropriate another sovereign country's resources?
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a "sh*t Trump says" blog.
Why wouldn't it benefit Mexico? The people coming across the border from Central America, South America wherever, aren't teleported from their place of origin to El Paso. They have to go through Mexico. What makes you think Mexico wants those folks flowing through? What makes you think Mexico would want the cartels to have a refuge in New Mexico and Arizona where they can escape the Mexican army? You don't think we have any economic leverage with Mexico?
The ISIS comment is a derivative of something the Donald has said all along and a criticism of foreign policy under Bush and Obama- that we get nothing for our efforts and that we make the world safe for Chinese and European businesses. So,if we were to go in and wipe out ISIS, we should take some oil.
HH has done a pretty good job trying to tell you guys that there are reasonable voters who are tired of hearing the chattering of arguments and counter-arguments and moaning about how difficult everything is while nothing happens and no one does anything.
You don't have to agree, and maybe your are right, but let's not act like this is a raving maniac talking and anyone who thinks "hey, that's right" or "I never thought of it that way" is an ignorant fool.
nothing gets done in a bipartisan fashion anymore. You Elect Bush or Clinton, it just gets worse. Is Trump the guy to blow it all up and give us a chance to be Americans instead of intransient D's or R's? I hope so, because something has to change or we will have 2 countries in America and that is not good. If you have someone in mind that can change the Washington culture, let me know
isn't going to approve or pay for a wall that is intended to keep people from sneaking into the US. if they were that concerned about central Americans, they would increase enforcement of their southern border. the members of the cartel who want to seek refuge in the US will find a way to get in whether through tunnels or bribery or whatnot. a wall won't prevent that type of illegal entry.
I honestly believe that if trump somehow wins the GOP nomination and the general election, he will start world war 3. chances are better than 50% that he would do or say something to piss off a country with nukes like Russia China or NK. and because he's a hard headed egomaniac, he would not back down.
can say anything he wants and you would bow and scrape not to piss him off from your tone. You really think that Trump is not at heart pragmatic? You really think he got to where he is by alienating everyone and talking crazy in business meetings while peeing in pants and making funny noises? You really paint this cartoon character than is only real in your head Les
can say anything he wants and you would bow and scrape not to piss him off from your tone. You really think that Trump is not at heart pragmatic? You really think he got to where he is by alienating everyone and talking crazy in business meetings while peeing in pants and making funny noises? You really paint this cartoon character than is only real in your head Les
there is a difference between being strong/assertive and being macho. trump is talking like he is a WWF character.
I have no idea or not if trump is pragmatic. from his words and the character he portrayed on the apprentice, he sounds like he's a confrontational bully who doesn't stop until he gets his way and surrounds himself with yes men. and I don't know what he was like when he was younger, but new Donald is sounding like a crazy old guy who lost his marbles.
if it seems to be a practical possibility going forward. Let's say Trump maintains a high level of support and wins enough primaries that isn't enough to win the nomination, but enough to make him a player. Let's also assume that there are two other candidates that are vying for the nomination. Is it possible that Trump gives his support to one of those two in return for the Vice Presidential nomination? He could bring a following and a lot of money to that ticket.
But I don't think it would be good for any Republican President to have him as their VP. A guy who thinks without speaking is not someone you want to have on your team when you want to stay on message.
On the left we have Hilary, who is 50/50 to be in the race or in jail, Sanders who doesn't have a prayer, and possibly Biden who carries a lot of baggage.
On the right you have a loud mouth and a whole diverse field behind him.
When did the left become the party of old white people?
RE: RE: Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists! Â
Those good citizens he was referring to are the illegals that commit rape and murder. If you deny it, you live in a fantasy world
most "illegals" are people who escaped poverty and violence in mexico and are taking the menial jobs cleaning dirty toilets and doing manual labor on farms 12 hours a day for less than minimum wage that a lot of ordinary americans shun. are there the odd ones who "rape and murder"? I'm sure. but I have not seen any statistics that demonstrate illegal immigrants commit more rape and murder than US citizens.
Meh, most of the smaller farms that I'm familiar with pay between $8 and $10 to illegals (under the table of course).
There is also a thriving black market that specializes in getting social security numbers for illegal immigrants. Had a guy at work "Carlos" (I never found out his real name) that provided all his I-9 documentation to get hired, had legitimate picture ID/drivers license, and was at the plant for almost ten years before the IRS started taking 75% of his paycheck. It seems Carlos (and his social security number) was 4 different illegals who didn't file their taxes, and as the only one that actually did file my friend at work had to foot the bill for all the back taxes. Since he couldn't live on 25% that the IRS left for them, he had to come clean to the company hoping that they would still keep him under his real name (he incidentally became a U.S. citizen legally in the years between when he was hired and the IRS came after him). Unfortunately of course they had to fire him.
Your overall point is correct that the majority are folks escaping poverty. But let's not pretend that the vast majority are slave labor here. There are plenty of opportunities to earn a good living illegal or not (just not many as a citizen has).
I don't think he'd settle for it, and any Pres candidate would be crazy to have a loose cannon like him on the ticket. By the time it comes to the nomination, he'll have insulted the hell out of the other candidates publicly making it too awkward for him to run with them. Unless there's a meeting of political whores, of course.
I felt it was real, I have no idea how it ends. To me all outcomes are plausible. If he falls on his face I know I'll hear I told you so's and it took a little longer than you thought. Hindsight is always 20/20
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
And you talk about denial?
FFS
I think the thing most people aren't yet considering is that money really hasn't come into play thus far. The media's fascination with Trump (and ratings) has meant that he's getting probably 3X the press coverage as the rest of the Republican field combined. They let him call in interviews, which they certainly haven't done for the other contenders.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Let's see what happened when money comes into play.
There are lot of sharp insightful posters on BBI Â
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
And you talk about denial?
FFS
I think the thing most people aren't yet considering is that money really hasn't come into play thus far. The media's fascination with Trump (and ratings) has meant that he's getting probably 3X the press coverage as the rest of the Republican field combined. They let him call in interviews, which they certainly haven't done for the other contenders.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Let's see what happened when money comes into play.
IMO the low information generally stay that way. Do they come out to vote. Trump if he gets the nomination may get a large majority of those and they may even show up.
How many young voters voted for Obama because they like him and personally and liked his positions superficially.
IMO Trump may get the same effect. He may not be as personally likable but I think people at this point like his FU attitude An anti establishment candidate who captures their attention. Kids 18-25may come lout for him in droves. A huge middle finger to the establishment.
Hillary is the very definition of an establishment politician. Obama wasn't IMO. Not some long time party hack who mobilized interest. And for those who insist Trump isn't qualified they are just whining. Our current POTUS was infinitely less qualified.
The biggest question I have is if the republicans establishment decides they can make a back door deal w the dems to sabotage him or withhold support.
Obama was a Senator and former state legislator... Â
Trump is a reality TV star, professional celebrity and businessman. I'd be the last to argue that a private sector career is a bar to high office, but when has Trump ever put hands on a piece of legislation?
I want the name, because the generic "the field" sooner or later has to be distilled to one person. This field is so overrated, the force of his personality just overshadows all of them and I don't know how ad buys are going to change that. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are total stiffs who are running disaster campaigns and make Mitt Romney look magnetic. Trump has also taken the fight to Bush and he has no idea how to get his arms around it. Ben Carson is just as out there as Trump, only he possesses 1/100 of the charisma. Rubio is a decent political athlete but it's very tough for me to see the republican electorate going to him. Ted Cruz is just obnoxious without the endearing qualities some see in Trump. I like Kasich, he has no shot. Fiorina? Huckabee? Paul? Please.
Reuters poll now has Trump at 32%, his highest yet. His favorability continues to climb in each poll too, and with that so does his ceiling. There is also some "follow the leader" bias at play, the longer Trump holds his lead the more some who didn't view him as legitimate will come around. We are already seeing some of that
I don't like Trump. I do find him wildly entertaining. I never thought he had a shot at this nomination 2 months ago, but at this point it's tough to say it's not possible. Especially against this field
Not so long ago, this entire race looked so different--on the surface. It now turns out that there isn;t a single member of this supposedly illustrious Republican field that isn't a train wreck in some fashion or other, except for Kasich, perhaps, and it isn't clear yet whether he picks up steam as the anti-Trump. (I disagree with MoM here, a little. SOMEONE is going to get momentum as the anti-Trump, and it might be Kasich. Maybe Rubio, too, but I doubt it.)
And, of course, on the Democratic side, it was difficult to imagine that the Hillary's incompetence on the e-mails--doing this originally, and then responding to it--would blow up so badly.
We are going to have a very weak pair of candidates, I fear. Not a good thing given the need for leadership in the world.
How many young voters voted for Obama because they like him and personally and liked his positions superficially. Kids 18-25may come lout for him in droves.
But remember, you had roughly 15 million of that cohort on college campuses which were hot houses of support for Obama. I doubt that will be true for Trump, if for no reason other than the fear the faculty will reduce their grades it they're seen showing Trump any support.
The biggest question I have is if the republicans establishment decides they can make a back door deal w the dems to sabotage him or withhold support.
I think relations are so toxic between the parties that this is highly unlikely. There would likely be a genuine fear that if such a deal was even broached it would be leaked to the press with a resulting firestorm
Many including myself have made the argument that when the field shrinks Trump is in huge trouble. A couple points about that.... 2 recent polls (forget who did each) came out over the weekend. In one he was also the leader among republicans when asked who your 2nd choice was, not only is he the top guy but he is also the leading number 2. In another poll they shrunk the field to 5 candidates (forget exactly which 5) and Trump won with something in the mid 40s
Most studies on early polling find several things: Â
1. The sample sizes utilized are so extremely low they yield a ton of skewed results (i.e., one candidate with a sizable amount of support, the others not so much).
2. They are often the most uninformed (and the least likely) voters who take part in them, as most potential voters are still acquiring information.
I'm 100% confident Trump's support will fall off and he will not be the nominee. If you take a look at polling patterns among the most recent elections, where there was sizable societal and economic upheaval, similar patterns to previous elections come to the fore. I doubt that this time is any different.
Anti-establishment candidates simply don't weather the storm.
RE: Most studies on early polling find several things: Â
1. The sample sizes utilized are so extremely low they yield a ton of skewed results (i.e., one candidate with a sizable amount of support, the others not so much).
2. They are often the most uninformed (and the least likely) voters who take part in them, as most potential voters are still acquiring information.
I'm 100% confident Trump's support will fall off and he will not be the nominee. If you take a look at polling patterns among the most recent elections, where there was sizable societal and economic upheaval, similar patterns to previous elections come to the fore. I doubt that this time is any different.
Anti-establishment candidates simply don't weather the storm.
Sample size? WTH does that have to do with anything?
-Anonymous
kicker, I still tend to agree with you, except for the old adage... Â
My kingdom (or republic) for a candidate who doesn't suck.
We have yet to see sizable policy platforms from the main candidates. At this point, with so many candidates, the optimal strategy is to work behind the scenes gathering support, not staking out a policy platform that is built on a tempestuous electorate, where you pander much more to the fringe than in the general election.
I think it's nobodies because that allows them to build. The brightest star burns too hot.
I think it goes Rubio, Kasich, and Bush, with Rubio the favorite in the race at a later date.
I like Kasich, and I may be wrong, but my view on him is that he's kind of this cycles John huntsman. The republican who democrats like and have a hard time figuring out why republicans don't like more. I think he's doing solid in New Hampshire but is still barely on the radar nationally
He doesn't impress me, but he has fewer warts than most of the others, and more potential momentum than Kasich. And more potential appeal to primary-type voters.
RE: RE: kicker, I still tend to agree with you, except for the old adage... Â
Get it. You cannot compare Rubio with either Kasich or Bush. What has he done, exactly, to garner any support. I live in Florida and as far as I am concerned he occupies a seat in the Senate.
But I do think Trump represents the DC outsider that people crave. More of an anybody but another professional politician. How else do you explain his gaffs and no adverse affect?
I can't tell you much about Rubio's accomplishments in the senate Â
Relative to anyone else.... But he has political skills by the boatload whether you like him or not. He is relatively charismatic, easily connects, can smoothly deliver a line without making it obvious that he is delivering a pre packaged line (runs circles around Bush or Hillary in this area). He passes the threshold of seeming presidential enough to envision in the office (which isn't easy for someone his age). Doesn't hurt that women probably find him attractive too. He is the best political athlete in the field in my view (at least among the actual politicians, Trump is kind of his own animal)
living in Florida, Bush was a very good Governor. He's easily as smooth if not smoother than Rubio in his speaches. I'll give Rubio credit for improving his delivery this year and I did like his Announcement speach. Jeb is just not an excitable person. If I had to pick one or the other to run the country, it is easily Bush. There is no comparison, period.
I think Bush is in his element in a 1 on 1 interview setting Â
He can really shine there. Giving a speech at a rally, or fielding questions from a large pool of reporters, or in a debate setting..... he's pretty terrible in my view, and he never seems comfortable and it shows
Incredibly overrated. For someone who was going to clear the field, he's been a complete bust. Also, he has put his foot in his mouth a lot.
And why is he running? What's his rationale? That he wants to continue the family business? To redeem the Bush name? At least HRC can say she'd be the first woman president. Jeb will be Bush the Third. Yawn.
Donald Trump is making Jeb Bush look like a total pussy every day. He is just relentlessly hitting him over the head, and his charisma makes Jeb's lack of charisma all the more glaring. He is finally starting to respond to Trump, but even when Bush is right on the substance (like saying Trump is a fake conservative because of past positions) he still doesn't win the argument because he's totally beta male next to Trump and the delivery doesn't pierce through. At first people though the presence of Trump would allow someone like Bush to look like the grown up in the room, instead he looks like Trumps prison bitch
RE: I think Bush is in his element in a 1 on 1 interview setting Â
He can really shine there. Giving a speech at a rally, or fielding questions from a large pool of reporters, or in a debate setting..... he's pretty terrible in my view, and he never seems comfortable and it shows
Guess you never saw his press conferences after the hurricanes. He was quite comfortable in English and Spanish.
Donald Trump is making Jeb Bush look like a total pussy every day. He is just relentlessly hitting him over the head, and his charisma makes Jeb's lack of charisma all the more glaring. He is finally starting to respond to Trump, but even when Bush is right on the substance (like saying Trump is a fake conservative because of past positions) he still doesn't win the argument because he's totally beta male next to Trump and the delivery doesn't pierce through. At first people though the presence of Trump would allow someone like Bush to look like the grown up in the room, instead he looks like Trumps prison bitch
He said he wasn't going to run an attack campaign. It is easy to make fun of someone that won't respond to verbal attacks, like Trump is doing.
It is funny that the only one Trump likes to make snide remarks about is Bush.
I think Trump has avoided attacks because nobody expected him to do this well this long. So nobody had a plan to combat Trumps verbosity.
I met a pretty large number of high-level people from the region post-Katrina, and they all extolled his virtues as a leader. He doesn't seem the same now, and I don't know why.
He gives awful interviews and press conferences. I mean 2 on a scale of 1-10, tops.
Donald Trump is making Jeb Bush look like a total pussy every day. He is just relentlessly hitting him over the head, and his charisma makes Jeb's lack of charisma all the more glaring. He is finally starting to respond to Trump, but even when Bush is right on the substance (like saying Trump is a fake conservative because of past positions) he still doesn't win the argument because he's totally beta male next to Trump and the delivery doesn't pierce through. At first people though the presence of Trump would allow someone like Bush to look like the grown up in the room, instead he looks like Trumps prison bitch
Given the media age we're in there's substance in what you say. But it's also worth remembering history. Remember this Newsweek cover? Saddam Hussein wished he had.
Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege—of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.
Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society. Populism has been misused to describe Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade, the John Birch Society, and David Duke’s white nationalism, among others.
I met a pretty large number of high-level people from the region post-Katrina, and they all extolled his virtues as a leader. He doesn't seem the same now, and I don't know why.
He gives awful interviews and press conferences. I mean 2 on a scale of 1-10, tops.
George, a leopard can't change its spots. You think he forgot how to lead. He is not a dynamic personality. But he knows what he is doing. Yeah today's politicians need glitz. You think Obama gets elected without his dynamic personality? I doubt it. Yet he cannot get his agenda accomplished. Except for Chief Justice Roberts wanting to change the perception of the Supreme Court as biased right, ACA gets tossed. (Oddly I am glad it has survived the court tests.)
Trump is bombastic; Bush is quiet like his father. He is not dynamic and never will be.
Trump is a reality TV star, professional celebrity and businessman. I'd be the last to argue that a private sector career is a bar to high office, but when has Trump ever put hands on a piece of legislation?
Yeah. Because having experience here leads to good legislation? How many legislators wrote up legislation. Their staff does it. Shit. Half of the. Never read legislation. And last I checked he President isnt in the house or the senate so his job is t really to write up legislation is it?
Get it. You cannot compare Rubio with either Kasich or Bush. What has he done, exactly, to garner any support. I live in Florida and as far as I am concerned he occupies a seat in the Senate.
He's had a very parallel career to Obams's up to the point that he was nominated, for better of worse. He's young, good looking, personable, positive, Hispanic and comes from a crucial swing state.
Incredibly overrated. For someone who was going to clear the field, he's been a complete bust. Also, he has put his foot in his mouth a lot.
And why is he running? What's his rationale? That he wants to continue the family business? To redeem the Bush name? At least HRC can say she'd be the first woman president. Jeb will be Bush the Third. Yawn.
Jeb's family is in politics so him running for Pres isn't a stretch.
HRC running to be "the first female Pres" is AWFUL reasoning to run (which I don't think is her reason)
Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege—of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.
Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society. Populism has been misused to describe Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade, the John Birch Society, and David Duke’s white nationalism, among others.
Link - ( New Window )
Typical TNR bullshit insinuating David Duke had any substantial support from the Republican base and equating him to Trump, Palin and the Kochs.
There is a difference between "not dynamic" and "bumbling."
In every public appearance I have seen so far, he has been the latter, not the former.
You do have a point. He has not been good at all. Thing is, neither has Hillary. She's giving him a run for his money. Of course Trump is just as bumbling, but his bombastic retorts overcome his ineptness. AT least he is entertaining.
that sentence was awful, and damaged an otherwise strong article.
]
I guess they couldn't resist a potshot. But their main point about Trump's pseudo-populism holds up anyway.
Trump is the result of the GOP ignoring their base for years Â
yes, they pander to them to get elected, then don't do anything they campaigned on. It's not that people supporting Trump are afraid of people they feel superior to, it's that they are tired of being the chumps of the GOP. They want action on immigration, Obamacare and other issues. The elections of 2010 and 2014 were clues. The problem is, there were no Trump-like candidates to actually do what the voters wanted them to do.
The establishment is in a panic. They have been a closed club for a long time, Reagan was the only outlier. Their candidates are boring and uninspiring, no wonder they think Jeb is the best candidate.
I'm not in the Trump camp, but I am delighted to see the Establishment get it's comeuppance.
(hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”).
And as long as it's fair game to link politically biased websites I'll provide this from the National Review which might provide a different basis for the applause after his PC comment.
Even though I think some of what Trump spews at times is more of a human decency matter than a political correctness matter, I do admire the shit out of how he refuses to cater to outside pressure and sticks by his guns, not a fuck given. I think people can tie themselves in a pretzel trying to explain away the reasons for his rise, but at it's core I think it's just a visceral magnetism of the clear alpha male in the room amongst a field where he has no competition in that regard.
RE: RE: Excellent article on Trump in New Republic Â
(hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”).
And as long as it's fair game to link politically biased websites I'll provide this from the National Review which might provide a different basis for the applause after his PC comment.
Hope you didn't order turkey breast on whole wheat today for lunch.
My God, I'm actually defending Donald Trump.
I didn't know at the time when I became libertarian that that was the reason, but I should have realized. Thankfully, I do have the redeeming quality of preferring dark meat
Tellya what, I was at a county fair Saturday in Pa.
I've gone many years past. Sales in hate-filled, intolerant merchandise must be high, because there was lots of it that I never saw before. LOTS of Confederate Flag merchandise, 2nd Amendment, anti-Liberal stuff. Interestingly, nothing with an anti-Conservative flavor. Apparently, county-fair attendees aren't very Liberal.
Signs with awesome Murcan' slogans like:
"SPEAK ENGLISH"
"Liberalism: Steal From the Rich, Give to the LAZY"
"I Fight POVERTY. I WORK!"
"AK-47 beats 911 EVERY TIME"
Great stuff. Made me proud to be an American. Really.
be where I am on this. I'm in tune with MoM. Last year before the reelection was on the farthest reaches of my things to think about, and you named Donald Trump, I would be my obnoxious, ripping and tearing self going after you.These mainstream candidates from both paries and the elected officials in DC brought this on themselves. Once you spring a leak in a dam, it only gets bigger. Frustration, anger, being felt left out, comes back to haunt you
RE: Political Correctness = Not Offending People Â
Tellya what, I was at a county fair Saturday in Pa.
I've gone many years past. Sales in hate-filled, intolerant merchandise must be high, because there was lots of it that I never saw before. LOTS of Confederate Flag merchandise, 2nd Amendment, anti-Liberal stuff. Interestingly, nothing with an anti-Conservative flavor. Apparently, county-fair attendees aren't very Liberal.
Signs with awesome Murcan' slogans like:
"SPEAK ENGLISH"
"Liberalism: Steal From the Rich, Give to the LAZY"
"I Fight POVERTY. I WORK!"
"AK-47 beats 911 EVERY TIME"
Great stuff. Made me proud to be an American. Really.
If terms like brown bagging it and white meat offend you, you have a problem, not the person saying it.
be where I am on this. I'm in tune with MoM. Last year before the reelection was on the farthest reaches of my things to think about, and you named Donald Trump, I would be my obnoxious, ripping and tearing self going after you.These mainstream candidates from both paries and the elected officials in DC brought this on themselves. Once you spring a leak in a dam, it only gets bigger. Frustration, anger, being felt left out, comes back to haunt you
I finished reading The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt by Edmund Morris a little while back and thinking that I was never going to see the likes of him and ending up a Trump supporter is the most ridiculous thing in the history of my life.
be where I am on this. I'm in tune with MoM. Last year before the reelection was on the farthest reaches of my things to think about, and you named Donald Trump, I would be my obnoxious, ripping and tearing self going after you.These mainstream candidates from both paries and the elected officials in DC brought this on themselves. Once you spring a leak in a dam, it only gets bigger. Frustration, anger, being felt left out, comes back to haunt you
Sadly this is likely the case.
Why "sadly"? The political system has become the antithesis of what the Founders envisioned. It could use a major kick in the ass.
RE: Even as a lefty I think PC crap has become absurd Â
Even though I think some of what Trump spews at times is more of a human decency matter than a political correctness matter, I do admire the shit out of how he refuses to cater to outside pressure and sticks by his guns, not a fuck given. I think people can tie themselves in a pretzel trying to explain away the reasons for his rise, but at it's core I think it's just a visceral magnetism of the clear alpha male in the room amongst a field where he has no competition in that regard.
The thing you are letting Trump slide though is that he's a cuntstick.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Democrats are stupid, huh. I expect better from you. Not everyone on BBI's right, but from you Im surprised by this. And that's not what she said. MB said with respect to HRC's [email defense]:
Quote:
"This is a strategy that is basically dependent on people not being smart, which I think is really condescending,” Brzezinski said.
Brzezinski is also talking out of her ass here. Her points are that HRC broke rules/policy by (1) having a home-based server and (2) basing a server out of a bathroom in Colorado are clear breaches of rules/policy. Except the server was not based out of a Colorado bathroom but rather a secure NJ data center -- that's just a bullshit story. And there was no rule about not using private email addresses/servers -- actually the State rules about data preservation have special provisions making clear that WHEN someone uses private email, the department still needsto preserve that stuff under the records act. You wouldnt have a rule like that if the rule was "no private servers". So Mika was just wrong on her two points. Dead wrong. Sorry to miller this thread. Link - ( New Window )
People are very tired of politicians on both side of the isle who will say anything to get into office but once there do little more than simply raise money while in office in order to stay there.
Trump has tapped into that and even though he offers little in way of any real ideas people understand that most of the alternative candidates that may offer their "ideas" are mostly just paying lip service anyways and therefor they don't see such a glaring difference at this point with regards to substance. They do however count on Trump being different to where he will actually try to do something more than worry about raising money and playing politics if he gets into office.
I guess a lot of people in this country are to the point they would rather have a man who they believe wants to roll up he sleeves and work at doing something about the problems even if he doesn't offer any real plans for doing so opposed to those who talk a good game but have little follow through or genuine commitment once in office.
Defining something you like so as to exclude someone you don't... Â
not the first time this has been done, won't be the last. Trump is playing umpteen cards in the populist playbook, and plenty of other repulsive folks before him have played some of them too. His economic justice argument is of a different character from some of the leftish populists of yore, even Bernie Sanders to the extent that he qualifies, but blaming illegal immigrants for economic woes is still an economic justice argument.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Democrats are stupid, huh. I expect better from you. Not everyone on BBI's right, but from you Im surprised by this. And that's not what she said. MB said with respect to HRC's [email defense]:
( New Window )
Hey, I didn't say it, Mika did. If anything I softened the statement by using "low information" rather than "not smart". And funny, you (and nobody else for that matter)didn't object to my classification of Trump supporters in the same way.
And as far as the servers go, we'll see. There's going to be an FBI report. Everybody has their talking points. They'll boil it down.
I think you're right about the frustration and resulting Trump support. I think the feeling is a lot stronger on the right than the left.
I just dont agree with it. Obama and Bush accomplished a lot. Both had signature achievements (Iran deal, ACA, NCLB, Bush tax cuts) while facing enormous challenges. Bush was stuck with the coming of age of international terrorism. Obama was stuck with the worst economy in generations and a middle east that quickly lit on fire (ongoing wars plus Arab Spring, now ISIS).
Classifying Democrat voters as "low information" is about equivalent Â
I think you're right about the frustration and resulting Trump support. I think the feeling is a lot stronger on the right than the left.
I just dont agree with it. Obama and Bush accomplished a lot. Both had signature achievements (Iran deal, ACA, NCLB, Bush tax cuts) while facing enormous challenges. Bush was stuck with the coming of age of international terrorism. Obama was stuck with the worst economy in generations and a middle east that quickly lit on fire (ongoing wars plus Arab Spring, now ISIS).
Jut to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter. That was only my take on why he is garnering so much support and how many people that are supporting him are likely viewing it.
(and in any event, repeating someone's bullshit uncritically is no defense). You changed a quote that essentially said that her defense on one issue depends on people not being smart to a statement that essentially only stupid people would vote for Hillary. I didnt address the Trump comment because you said "I wouldnt be surprised" -- you didnt carve out a position.
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
and "respected" newspapers have gotten this story wrong every step of the way. They are proving themselves to be frauds, but they keep doubling down figuring eventually they'll get it right
RE: You didnt soften it or just repeat what she said Â
(and in any event, repeating someone's bullshit uncritically is no defense). You changed a quote that essentially said that her defense on one issue depends on people not being smart to a statement that essentially only stupid people would vote for Hillary. I didnt address the Trump comment because you said "I wouldnt be surprised" -- you didnt carve out a position.
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
(and in any event, repeating someone's bullshit uncritically is no defense). You changed a quote that essentially said that her defense on one issue depends on people not being smart to a statement that essentially only stupid people would vote for Hillary. I didnt address the Trump comment because you said "I wouldnt be surprised" -- you didnt carve out a position.
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
"Only" stupid people? That I never said.
No, you didnt. But you tacitly approved a comment that most of her voters were low information voters. And that wasnt even the comment you were purporting to approve, so the words were your own.
Can you be vastly better educated but low information? Or is it mainly about gender? Are women to busy taking care of babies to be well-informed?
Quote:
Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.
But this is probably wrong. The people at Pew are low-information female pollsters. Link - ( New Window )
people with graduate degrees are more likely to vote Democrat. People with less than HS education and who topped out at a HS diploma are more likely to vote Democrat. Those in the middle lean more Republican.
No college Obama +4, Some college Obama +1, College degree Romney +4, Post grad degree Obama +13.
You cant take the college dropouts from us Dune. Those are ours!
More seriously, the only material # in there looks to be the post grad degree groups. Dullards. I suspect that educational achievement is actually not doing much work here and that the education sub-splits are just noise except maybe for that last group.
Scott Walker just jumped to the front of the idiot train, putting out the following official statement today, ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the U.S.
Quote:
“Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today's markets driven in part by China's slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy. Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests. Given China’s massive cyberattacks against America, its militarization of the South China Sea, continued state interference with its economy, and persistent persecution of Christians and human rights activists, President Obama needs to cancel the state visit. There's serious work to be done rather than pomp and circumstance. We need to see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations."
China make stock bad. Make China stay home. Make me Scott Prezydunt.
let's go back to pre Nixon visiting China days. What a moron. Yeah there are things to try to hold China's feet to the fire for, but canceling a State visit? This was was your darling who beat the unions. He has a 37 percent favoribilty in Wisconsin and I see why.
Chris Christie was at 70 percent when he was elected Governor, now he is around 42 favorability, if that high. DeBlassio got 65 percent of the vote, if the Election is held tomorrow he gets maybe 40 percent. Things change, riding high in April shot down in May
Walker's Winconsin popularity was always part illusion. Â
He won the first time fair and square, and then went union-hunting. He won the recall vote mostly because a very large number of the state's voters really weren't interested in recalling him between elections. In exit polls, he got a lot of "dislikes" from voters who voted against recalling him.
The third win was part of the Republican rout. And since then, he has been falling from really lousy in-state employment results, stupid moves like cutting a huge chunk from the budget of one of the nation's very best state universities, and moving hard to the right on social issues in a mainly moderate state.
He's burnt toast, which is fine with me. I hate the guy.
email thing. And again, for the record, I'm not excusing what she's done. It was a stupid, unforced error that continues to hurt her & will continue to hurt her until she's either cleared or there's a smoking gun, in which case she's finished.
The NYT, which has never been kind to the Clintons, made fools out of themselves last month when they ran that front page article saying she was the target of a criminal investigation. They pretty walked back that entire story. And most recently, that the server was stored in a bathroom in Denver. The company came out & said that was completely ridiculous.
The media has never learned their lesson. They fell for the same crap in the '90s with the Clintons: there'd be some outrageous allegation, they'd report it, it (usually) turned out to be complete bunk, & they just moved on to the next 'scandal' & did the same thing, never admitting that they got completely played.
Why not let it all play out before throwing HRC in prison for the next 10 years? This story continues to evolve & nobody knows where it's going to lead.
being interviewed on Meet The Press. Everything she said was OK until she said the reason for the California Wildfires was 40 years of Liberal Policy's in California( Google the Transcript) bye-bye Carly
RE: The media has made fools out of themselves with this HRC Â
email thing. And again, for the record, I'm not excusing what she's done. It was a stupid, unforced error that continues to hurt her & will continue to hurt her until she's either cleared or there's a smoking gun, in which case she's finished.
The NYT, which has never been kind to the Clintons, made fools out of themselves last month when they ran that front page article saying she was the target of a criminal investigation. They pretty walked back that entire story. And most recently, that the server was stored in a bathroom in Denver. The company came out & said that was completely ridiculous.
The media has never learned their lesson. They fell for the same crap in the '90s with the Clintons: there'd be some outrageous allegation, they'd report it, it (usually) turned out to be complete bunk, & they just moved on to the next 'scandal' & did the same thing, never admitting that they got completely played.
Why not let it all play out before throwing HRC in prison for the next 10 years? This story continues to evolve & nobody knows where it's going to lead.
So you're saying this is already in the rearview at ThinkProgress?
people with graduate degrees are more likely to vote Democrat. People with less than HS education and who topped out at a HS diploma are more likely to vote Democrat. Those in the middle lean more Republican.
This has always interested me. Quick google search shows that about 25% of masters degrees are MBA's and slightly less are education degrees. I'd imagine that the latter group, with its union affilitations, would be heavily (D). Similarly, academics whose funding depends on government sources would lean that way. Is there any data on the correlation between advanced degree fields and political inclination?
has hurt the reliability of the polls. That was my point.
Now that politics has become a game where you live and die with your "team".
Hell, new polls come out every morning.
I could care less for Walker.
Right now the republican candidates are looking like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
The democrat candidates look like escapees from the old white folks home. They really need to march out some more 70ish white folks to make it interesting. Not.
And you're the one who copied the link from the Daily Mail to the server in the bathroom.
I'll patiently await your retraction.
I believe I mentioned that we should "consider the source" or something to that extent, as I usually do with partisan sources. Bathroom or not, is there any indication that the company that maintained and backed up the server was authorized to touch classified material?
Dick Cheney is going to address the Iran deal a week before the vote. Bush has no plans to, Clinton has no plans to, but the vampire who refuses to die has to. We are waiting with bated breath for you to tell us how Obama is weak and is selling Israel down the river and endangering America.His cow of a wife will moo in support and his mentally challenged daughter will set her hair on fire to protest the Deal.
Dick Cheney is going to address the Iran deal a week before the vote. Bush has no plans to, Clinton has no plans to, but the vampire who refuses to die has to. We are waiting with bated breath for you to tell us how Obama is weak and is selling Israel down the river and endangering America.His cow of a wife will moo in support and his mentally challenged daughter will set her hair on fire to protest the Deal.
This field sucks for them too. They have a demographic advantage, but they could screw it up with a flawed candidate. Hillary is a terrible politician with an annoying voice and no ability to connect, total robot. She's out here butchering obviously spoon fed punchlines about snap chat and feigning ignorance that no one buys on this server issue ('what do you mean wipe it? Like with a cloth?'). She has a toxic relationship with the press and is playing prevent defense in the first quarter.
She is such a flawed front runner but I don't know who can beat her. I love Bernie but I don't think that's realistic. Martin o'malley would make a good president on a tv show, he totally looks like a tv president. Lincoln chaffe (sp?) is a total punchline. I actually think Donald Trump could make Lincoln Chaffe cry in a debate
I think he will enter too. When I heard he was visiting Elizabeth Warren, I think I speak for many democrats who would much rather see her jump in of the two, don't think that happens though. I think she would beat Hillary too, she is such a paper tiger ripe for the picking by the right candidate. It scares me.
They both speak their minds and are unfiltered. People like Uncle Joe and he always appealed to the Blue Coller guy because he was one of them.Will he make gaffe? His advisers are counting them on to counter Trump's gaffes. This would be a no holds barred throw down from 2 guys who don't know how to back down
Why not let it all play out before throwing HRC in prison for the next 10 years? This story continues to evolve & nobody knows where it's going to lead.
Fine with me. FBI is looking into it. Hillary signed an affidavit (ordered by a judge her husband appointed to the District Court so no vast right wing conspiracy here) saying everything has been turned over. Let's see what turns up.
Query. If no criminality (we're waiting for the actual determination) arises but it's discovered that her server was less secure that State's and was hacked by Russia, China, North Korea and Israel do you think that reflects on her fitness for higher office?
Thank you Jeb for clarifying your "Anchor Baby" comments Â
They both speak their minds and are unfiltered. People like Uncle Joe and he always appealed to the Blue Coller guy because he was one of them.Will he make gaffe? His advisers are counting them on to counter Trump's gaffes. This would be a no holds barred throw down from 2 guys who don't know how to back down
at the Border he said it is the Asians not the Mexicans who are taking advantage of birthright laws
That gaffe was positively Biden-esque, and proves that when he tries to stoop to Trump's level he fails miserably.
Intentional. Positioning himself as the moderate on immigration. Remember that the D's obsession with demographics is tied to getting 85-90% of the black vote and 65-75% of the Hispanic vote (Puerto Ricans are in the 85-90 range at least in the big cities in the Northeast). Pry 5 or 10% of the Hispanic plurality and the D's have some problems.
I think Mitt Romneys pollster put the number at 55% to basically clinch the election for the dems. It was his opinion that unless the Republicans win 45% of Hispanics they just don't have a shot, it becomes a mathematical longshot. For perspective, Romney won 27% last cycle. George Bush won 44% the last time a republican won the election in 04 (and Hispanics are now a much bigger part of the electorate than they were even then)
No. I dislike the fact that we have another Bush anointed the presumptive nominee, but beyond his last name he comes across as cold and aloof and I haven't seen anything so far to change that.
of Obama makes it very interesting. You're running on four more years, which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on where the economy is a year from now. It is improved from six or seven years ago, sure, but how much, and does perception match reality? Is there an intervening crisis, be it foreign policy or some other disaster, that pushes us further to the poles or brings us closer together? Superficially it looks like a reasonable strategy for keeping the Obama coalition together, particularly with a Veep like Warren who might mend some fences about the lack of "history" being made atop the ticket and also generate some energy among liberals. But Biden is nowhere near the campaigner Obama was/is, and do you generate the same sort of enthusiasm or keep at bay the folks who want change for change's sake?
I think Mitt Romneys pollster put the number at 55% to basically clinch the election for the dems. It was his opinion that unless the Republicans win 45% of Hispanics they just don't have a shot, it becomes a mathematical longshot. For perspective, Romney won 27% last cycle. George Bush won 44% the last time a republican won the election in 04 (and Hispanics are now a much bigger part of the electorate than they were even then)
And a core strategy of Bush was to not alienate hispanic voters. Part of the appeal of Jeb is that people think he can draw hispanic votes. But all this anchor baby, build a wall, birthright citizenship stuff will not play well with a decent segment of the hispanic electorate.
Another interesting angle on hispanic voters is the Miami Cuban contingent. They vote their own way, much more conservative (like Orthodox Jews, who are a political breakaway from how reform and conservatives vote). I suspect the new Cuba relations will push more of them to the GOP.
but I wonder if Trump prefers the individuals who managed to subdue that train gunman, who did it without getting wounded. Those guys who got wounded must have been losers.
Biden promises he's a 1 term president. Otherwise she would either run herself or remain a power broker in the Senate. She's 66, and a 2 term Biden presidency would leave her running at age 74. No way that's acceptable if she really wants the job.
Well...Asians are a smaller voting group, so will it really hurt him? And really, those damn Asian people...they're the worst.
He'll promise to pass the "staple act" so that all those Asians in US grad schools getting masters/PHDs in STEM subjects get green cards upon graduation. Problem solved.
watching these candidates have to react to Trump and stick their feet in their mouth's because they are not used to dealing with the likes of him, is geat political theater
Bush goes down to Texas and defends his use of the term 'anchor babies', stating that it does not apply to Hispanics. Instead, it applies to another minority group, Asians. So, he walks back an insult of one group and then insults another. And the term is offensive.
He puts his foot in his mouth every other week. Keep trolling him Donald. He gives you plenty of material.
Trump 35, Kasich 11, Bush 7, Walker 7, Carson 6, Christie 4, Fiorina 10, Cruz 4, Paul 3, Rubio 4, Huckabee 0, Perry 2, Jindal 0, Graham 1, Santorum 1.
Trump as much as the next 4. Interesting that Kasich has moved to second, though. The Republican establishment plus some of the PACs could start seeing him as the "white night" in this mess.
Not the case in SC, though:
Trump 30, Carson 15, Bush 9, Walker 4, Huckabee 3, Graham 4, Rubio 6, Cruz 5, Fiorina 6, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Paul 3, Perry 0, Jindal 0
Yeah, Sanders is ahead of Hillary in NH. Not sure that means so much. Biden might mean more if he gets in, might not. Or the Dems could limp on with a damaged candidate.
at least Jeb isn't the only person blaming the Asians...Mike Huckabee is joining in on the fun...yay!
Quote:
“But there’re a couple of myths. Mexico is actually not the number one source of illegal immigrants, China is, and I think Indonesia is second. Mexico is third. So while a lot of people assume that all the illegal immigration is coming south of the border, that’s actually not the case. Most of it is coming from Asia these days.”
Hey, whatever floats your boat, just say it. No need to verify anything. Link - ( New Window )
Tripling and quadrupling down on this megyn Kelly stuff Â
Is just really obnoxious. Some of his shtick can be entertaining, but other times he just comes off like a massive asshole who deserves a punch in the face. For all his tough talk he easily has the thinnest skin of anyone I've ever seen on this stage. This is all fun now, but at some point his rise can stop being fun and start being really, really scary. He's totally unfit
rather than get bet out shape over people who support Trump, you should focus more on the underlying reasons he has support.
I'm sick of professional politicians that are going to shut down the Government because of Planned Parenthood for political points. I'm sick of th gridlock, the disdain that politicians have for the voter and are only concerned with getting reelected. Trump is Trump, but to me he is the antidote to the crap that has been going on since Clinton's Impeachment.
rather than get bet out shape over people who support Trump, you should focus more on the underlying reasons he has support.
I'm sick of professional politicians that are going to shut down the Government because of Planned Parenthood for political points. I'm sick of th gridlock, the disdain that politicians have for the voter and are only concerned with getting reelected. Trump is Trump, but to me he is the antidote to the crap that has been going on since Clinton's Impeachment.
Except what has Trump ever said or done to make you believe he wouldn't be just as inflexible as President as Congress is now?
Trump's campaign slogan is "Make American Great Again." But the subtext of that is, (Whether You Like It Or Not).
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
Are you trying to convince people to like trump? Many don't and you can't.
RE: Only 1 way Warren would accept the Veep slot Â
Biden promises he's a 1 term president. Otherwise she would either run herself or remain a power broker in the Senate. She's 66, and a 2 term Biden presidency would leave her running at age 74. No way that's acceptable if she really wants the job.
I don't get the Warren love. In her way, she's as much theater as the Donald.
and they feel that the world events are spinning out of control, you have a guy who is confident and brags how good he is, people see success and they feel reassured that there is someone strong out there rather than the mealy mouthed, consultant approved, focal panel
tested, blah, blah blah political hacks. I'm just stating the reasons why I believe Trump is where he is today
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
For the same reason people slow down when they see a car crash by the side of the road.
Trump is a fascinating political experiment that we've arguably never seen played out. How far can blind charisma carry a Presidential candidate when he demonstrates, with nearly every breath, that he has no idea how to do the job?
I'm not building a case FOR Trump, I'm trying to give you an idea WHY
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
I'm not building a case FOR Trump, I'm trying to give you an idea WHY
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
My chickens are much more trustworthy. And giving to society, quite frankly.
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
Everybody? And the question I would ask is how far ratings have risen with the exception of the debate (no doubt there). At this point I'm normally watching the Yankee games in the evening and if I do watch an opinion show I turn the channel when he is on. If he calls into Morning Joe I switch to CNBC or Bloomberg. They DO, however, allow him to do phone interviews unlike virtually any other candidate. I'm just not sure what they think is happening, increased ratings, is indeed occurring.
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
For the same reason people slow down when they see a car crash by the side of the road.
Trump is a fascinating political experiment that we've arguably never seen played out. How far can blind charisma carry a Presidential candidate when he demonstrates, with nearly every breath, that he has no idea how to do the job?
Why do people insist lobbing softballs to be hit out of the park?
RE: RE: Only 1 way Warren would accept the Veep slot Â
Biden promises he's a 1 term president. Otherwise she would either run herself or remain a power broker in the Senate. She's 66, and a 2 term Biden presidency would leave her running at age 74. No way that's acceptable if she really wants the job.
I don't get the Warren love. In her way, she's as much theater as the Donald.
If you define the Democratic base as the liberal wing of the party she's a deity, and could probably lock down every bundler who hasn't already committed to Clinton.
Trump found a way to be mostly successful in real estate after being given a huge head start, a formula, and some failures that he could recover from.
He has shown no indication that he could be a good diplomat nor national leader. Further, his "solutions" seem to be hollow at best, and he's mostly offered no real solutions anyway. Nor any reason why we should think he could implement them.
However, if we think we should vote for him because he's dynamic when he says "You're fired" or because when he was put on the spot in a debate, he lashed out and then continued to lash out even when he had time to think about it and consult about how it was bad, and has a platform consisting of " people are too PC", then go crazy and vote for him?
Trump is the modern Right. The tea party won. Face it. Â
I don’t mean to be insulting (if I am), and I don’t mean to say all I view every Republicans like this (and in particular I could name some thoughtful BBI righties). That said…
I don’t get why there is so much consternation over Trump. He’s the embodiment of the 21st century Republican. He’s the heir to the guy who got elected on bravado, with the rallying cry “Don’t mess with Texas” and the solution to all problems resting in either (1) tax cuts and (2) statements of toughness. He’s the heir to the Rick Santelli rant which tabbed people losing their homes as “losers” (a real Trump term) that called for a “Chicago Tea Party”, thus providing spark for the Tea Party movement. He’s the heir to a Republican opposition strategy of rank opposition – everything Obama is for is bad, and even if it’s something like Obamacare which was effectively the policy of the GOP’s last two presidential candidates but is now CLEARLY unconstitutional to the whole right (“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”).
Let’s not forget how Trump became popular on the right – with the Trumped up birther charges that too many rank & filers believed and too many elected officials turned a blind eye towards for too long. What is keeping him popular now is (1) the fact that he’s ‘giving it to the liberals’, (2) his robust anti-illegal immigration/immigrant rhetoric, and (3) non-politician background (because Reagan said that government is the problem). That’s the modern right in my eyes – anti-liberal (more so than conservative), anti-illegal immigrant (and in some corners, just anti-immigrant), and anti-government. Reactionary.
So what’s the problem with Trump? He’s thin skinned. So what. He’s angry about all the shit that has conservatives angry. And that anger seems to be the fulcrum of the post-Bush right wing. It’s certainly not some broad vision for the 21st century (or if it is, I haven’t heard it).
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
I'm not building a case FOR Trump, I'm trying to give you an idea WHY
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
For as fucked as you perceive Trump supporters to be, dummies and barely literates and too stupid to be in the same room with you, the one thing have to give the idiots is their passion. Who are you passionate about? And don't cop out by saying anyone opposed to Trump. Name names.
For as fucked as you perceive Trump supporters to be, dummies and barely literates and too stupid to be in the same room with you, the one thing have to give the idiots is their passion. Who are you passionate about? And don't cop out by saying anyone opposed to Trump. Name names.
Passion is a morally neutral emotion. Having it doesn't, in itself, grant you any sort of high ground.
Do you think the passion showed by people advocating liberal PC culture gives their views more validity than the substance of their arguments?
if passion doesn't work for you, how about which candidate has got your undivided attention? The one you would walk 3 miles uphill in a blizzard to vote for?
he's the current state of politics. I don't see how anyone can talk about Trump without also talking about the debacle of the Dem candidates. People are tired of Bushes and Clintons, of establishment pols who are in the pockets of big donors. That's why Trump AND Sanders are doing well. We don't want to be ruled by elites. We want someone who will effectively run the country. Not saying that Trump or Sanders will, but the last4 haven't done a great job.
if passion doesn't work for you, how about which candidate has got your undivided attention? The one you would walk 3 miles uphill in a blizzard to vote for?
Both are also morally neutral. The worst leaders ever elected to public service have had their diehard defenders. Religion contains some of the worst ideas every imagined, and people gladly organize their lives (and deaths) around those principles.
I don't like Jeb. There are about 5 people who post anti HRC threads/links every other day. Stop pretending like I'm the only one who gets some glee out of the misfortune of a candidate I don't like. And if it bothers you so much, ignore it. It's not that hard to ignore someone's posts.
RE: Teddy Roosvelt had great admirers and followers Â
that were I dare say passionate about TR. how did he turn out?
I guess he turned out fine. Which, again, is my point. If history's best and worst leaders both had "passionate" defenders in common, then it's probably a bad idea to use the level of passion to gauge the value of a candidate.
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
He was smart enough not to topple Hussein & all that that would bring. He deftly handled the collapse of the USSR. He signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with his sons.
I don't like Jeb. There are about 5 people who post anti HRC threads/links every other day. Stop pretending like I'm the only one who gets some glee out of the misfortune of a candidate I don't like. And if it bothers you so much, ignore it. It's not that hard to ignore someone's posts.
Grow up already You cry and complain when people question or take a shot at HRC and defend how she is "attacked more than any other candidate" even though she is the ONLY candidate on the Dem side, so of course she is going to get all the attention.
But yet, you sit here every single day ripping Bush as if it matters. We get it. You dont like him. You have made that point perfectly clear. We dont need to hear it constantly.
I don't like Jeb. There are about 5 people who post anti HRC threads/links every other day. Stop pretending like I'm the only one who gets some glee out of the misfortune of a candidate I don't like. And if it bothers you so much, ignore it. It's not that hard to ignore someone's posts.
Grow up already You cry and complain when people question or take a shot at HRC and defend how she is "attacked more than any other candidate" even though she is the ONLY candidate on the Dem side, so of course she is going to get all the attention.
But yet, you sit here every single day ripping Bush as if it matters. We get it. You dont like him. You have made that point perfectly clear. We dont need to hear it constantly.
Dep, I know you hate Hillary so of course you have no problem when others attack her constantly. But when someone rips another candidate for putting his foot in his mouth every other day, you bemoan '...we don't need to hear it constantly'.
Be a little consistent pal & then you might have a point.
You cry when people rip Hillary, but rip Jeb any chance you get. Ever hear the saying you can dish it, but cant take it?
Yes I dont like HRC, but I am not sitting here defending Jeb, Trump, Cruz or any other Republican candidate when people continue to put them down. You are the one who cant see the difference.
But now I know its ok to rip HRC any chance I can now, because you wont respond, right?
and hopefully we dont have to hear constantly about another candidate that we already know is terrible.....
Listening to Trump now in Iowa... I am befuddled that anyone can vote for him in the primary, then at the same time Ill be kicking myself when I have to vote for him in the general election.
I defend her when some hear go into their Benghazi/Whitewater/Vince Foster like tirades about her that don't jive with the facts.
I've not once defended her decision to have a private email account. But I have defended her when people say she's only where she is because of her husband (totally wrong & bordering on sexist), that she should be sent to prison (a tad over the top at this juncture), etc.
My wife was just listening to Trump giving a speech and said she's starting to like what he says. Btw, she's one of those low-information idiots who graduated NYU with a computer science degree in 1971 and was a VP at Chemical Bank when she retired. And she was never a TP person.
My wife was just listening to Trump giving a speech and said she's starting to like what he says. Btw, she's one of those low-information idiots who graduated NYU with a computer science degree in 1971 and was a VP at Chemical Bank when she retired. And she was never a TP person.
He appeals to the masses. Most not the educated kind when it comes to politics.
And Ramos was out of line in the questioning of Donald. He went in their to sabotage the interview not learn anything.
My wife was just listening to Trump giving a speech and said she's starting to like what he says. Btw, she's one of those low-information idiots who graduated NYU with a computer science degree in 1971 and was a VP at Chemical Bank when she retired. And she was never a TP person.
He talks plainly, like when he was discussing how illegal aliens are behind many of the gangs in the US right now. I just wish he would stop some of the stupid stuff.
But Jorge Ramos just made an ass of himself. His little outburst will likely play out well for Trump in the end and net him a slight bump in the polls - because seemingly every controversy around him does.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, he didn't fold and quiver in the corner when controversy came at him in a public event. His detractor looks like a hot headed instigator who came looking for a fight and to create a story and Trump just brushed him aside and even had him brought back to make an ever bigger ass of himself when he was given a chance to speak after the initial outburts.
I don't get this whole Trump thing, but I've given up on it. The entire field on both sides sucks, so maybe it really shouldn't be that surprising.
RE: RE: Trump is the modern Right. The tea party won. Face it. Â
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
You and I are not going to agree on what the tea party is. To me the tea party has nothing to do with policy positions and winning on issues. Rather, the sine qua non of the tea party is anger. It is a seething anger -- and an accompanying state of being aggrieved -- over a perceived loss of America. And in particular the America where men were in charge, where business was in charge, where whites were in charge, where Republicans were in charge (of the White House) and where America was in charge. Not that the tea party is inherently racist -- I dont think that it is. But it is a movement whose philosophy is that "we" want "our" country back (roughly) -- and this is exclusionary; the tea partiers are losing to someone else who is winning, and that shit has to stop.
This lashing out, the seeting anger , has very much won over the GOP. And it's why Donald Trump, who someone at TNR aptly described as the voice of "aggrieve privilege", is leading in the GOP's polls.
I think has also made the most incisive comment of anyone I've heard so far. IMO the #1 issue we face right now is the corrupting influence of money in politics. It turns our politicians into professional beggars and influence peddlers.
Trump's explanation at the debate of why he gives $$ was one of the most powerful criticisms of the system I've ever seen. And it was off the cuff. Not sure he meant it as a criticism per se, but he plainly wasnt saying it was a good thing.
As I always suspected but had insufficient proof, Trump's temperament problems will be what ultimately do him in.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
Kicked the most influential Spanish language TV reporter out of a news conference. The motivation here is more obvious, but not necessarily all that clever longer term. Link - ( New Window )
more than hurt him. And really, it's hard to believe that Ramos wasn't trying to grandstand - he could have easily waited to be called on and asked his question like everyone else, but chose to interrupt instead.
Trump then blunted any criticism that would've come from that move by then allowing Ramos back in the room, and actually talking to him.
Kicked the most influential Spanish language TV reporter out of a news conference. The motivation here is more obvious, but not necessarily all that clever longer term. Link - ( New Window )
I hate Trump, but Ramos should have been kicked out. He was a complete asshole. There was no hidden meaning behind it, because he invited him back and answered questions from him. But Ramos was WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of line. He was embarrassing.
He gets all sorts of credit for being unscripted and going full stream of consciousness, but he has a checklist that he hits in every single speech
- fuck those guys who killed Kate and Jameel (always only use the first name)
- nabisco can go screw themselves, boycott Oreos
- he cherishes woman. Always use the word cherish too.
- he's gonna win the Latino vote because he is going to bring jobs back from china (and hey did you see that poll in Nevada?)
- always throw in a shoutout to the wounded warriors which is a staple of his post McCain spat campaign
- John Kerry looks like a douche getting in bicycle races at 73 and breaking his leg. Trump will never do that (I actually find this one funny)
- just crush Jeb bush, the attacks vary but usually it's about him saying 'act of love', or the 'skin in the game quote' or his gaffe on womens health issues. Now he's working in that bush is copying him on anchor baby
- mention his school and his wealth and generally just boast
I'm sure you can add to this, but he has the same checklist every single speech. Hardly as unscripted as given credit for. He's really insanely repetitive
There are a lot of people that opt for one liners Â
If I was a donor, I'd want my $ back. This dude is absolutely awful.
Link - ( New Window )
He would crush anyone that's not clinton. And it would be a photo finish if she's the nominee. Which she won't be. After she's done in by the emails the republicans are in the drivers seat. I can read your fear.
He gets all sorts of credit for being unscripted and going full stream of consciousness, but he has a checklist that he hits in every single speech
- fuck those guys who killed Kate and Jameel (always only use the first name)
- nabisco can go screw themselves, boycott Oreos
- he cherishes woman. Always use the word cherish too.
- he's gonna win the Latino vote because he is going to bring jobs back from china (and hey did you see that poll in Nevada?)
- always throw in a shoutout to the wounded warriors which is a staple of his post McCain spat campaign
- John Kerry looks like a douche getting in bicycle races at 73 and breaking his leg. Trump will never do that (I actually find this one funny)
- just crush Jeb bush, the attacks vary but usually it's about him saying 'act of love', or the 'skin in the game quote' or his gaffe on womens health issues. Now he's working in that bush is copying him on anchor baby
- mention his school and his wealth and generally just boast
I'm sure you can add to this, but he has the same checklist every single speech. Hardly as unscripted as given credit for. He's really insanely repetitive
'Jeb Bush is a low energy person' 'FOX got 24 million viewers for the debate. They'd be lucky to get 2 million if not for me.'
RE: RE: RE: Trump is the modern Right. The tea party won. Face it. Â
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
You and I are not going to agree on what the tea party is. To me the tea party has nothing to do with policy positions and winning on issues. Rather, the sine qua non of the tea party is anger. It is a seething anger -- and an accompanying state of being aggrieved -- over a perceived loss of America. And in particular the America where men were in charge, where business was in charge, where whites were in charge, where Republicans were in charge (of the White House) and where America was in charge. Not that the tea party is inherently racist -- I dont think that it is. But it is a movement whose philosophy is that "we" want "our" country back (roughly) -- and this is exclusionary; the tea partiers are losing to someone else who is winning, and that shit has to stop.
This lashing out, the seeting anger , has very much won over the GOP. And it's why Donald Trump, who someone at TNR aptly described as the voice of "aggrieve privilege", is leading in the GOP's polls.
You're free to any view you choose. I've been in the TP and know scores of other members. I'm comfortable in my assessment of who we are. How many TP members have you had conversations with? I'm disappointed in, and resigned to, the state of the nation. The only people I've been angry at are establishment Republicans who tried to co-opt us for their own purposes. When I was in the TP my job was to head the committee that scored votes of every Senator and Congressman. There were about 50 in the House and about 10 in the Senate who were acceptable to us. If that's your idea of taking over the Republican party, I disagree. Actually, the one who sounds angry here is you.
As I always suspected but had insufficient proof, Trump's temperament problems will be what ultimately do him in.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
You're free to any view you choose. I've been in the TP and know scores of other members. I'm comfortable in my assessment of who we are. How many TP members have you had conversations with? I'm disappointed in, and resigned to, the state of the nation. The only people I've been angry at are establishment Republicans who tried to co-opt us for their own purposes. When I was in the TP my job was to head the committee that scored votes of every Senator and Congressman. There were about 50 in the House and about 10 in the Senate who were acceptable to us. If that's your idea of taking over the Republican party, I disagree. Actually, the one who sounds angry here is you.
Great post. I also know some TP people. They started out when Bush was President rejecting his big spending habits especially the TARP bailouts. The GOP has been a sham for a long time. That is what the anger is about.
I haven't a clue as to why Trump is still around. I listened to his "speech" for a while last night but only so much "me, me, me" I can handle, yet the SOB is mesmerizing.
Two things I have found:
1.) Jeb is not the candidate I thought he would be. Maybe Christie is right, his time has passed him by.
2.) Dems blind allegiance to HRC is confusing. She's as boring and bumbling as Jeb with a ton more baggage. She's making Joe Biden (whom I genuinely like despite his gaffes) a viable candidate.
I haven't a clue as to why Trump is still around. I listened to his "speech" for a while last night but only so much "me, me, me" I can handle, yet the SOB is mesmerizing.
Two things I have found:
1.) Jeb is not the candidate I thought he would be. Maybe Christie is right, his time has passed him by.
2.) Dems blind allegiance to HRC is confusing. She's as boring and bumbling as Jeb with a ton more baggage. She's making Joe Biden (whom I genuinely like despite his gaffes) a viable candidate.
I just don't know what to make of this mess.
I'm surprised Rubio hasn't made more of a run. I'd still say anyone who is low still has a run in them including Christie, the field will narrow which will change things.
1) Despite the e-mail disaster, Hillary as a stump candidate is still the strongest campaigner the Dems have. She has let the e-mail mess throw her off her game, to be sure, but she still has a very strong ground game and she will handle herself in debates and press conferences, way better than Biden or Bernie. She is far from optimal, but the Dems still see her as the best shot to win, in comparison with Biden, who has no ground game in place, and Bernie, who has a hard core of hard left supporters but cannot attract independents--or even most minorities. So, she continues to get support despite numerous weaknesses. Many Democrats view 2016 as a campaign of ideas, and they don;t see an alternative to Hillary to fight against Republicans campaigning pretty far to the right.
2) Trump isn't Tea Party, he's a pseudo-populist who is campaigning on the ashes of what is left of the Tea Party. He will still crash and burn as his tactical approach needs to be replaced by real policy positions. As was noted above, he has a small set of catch phrases that make up his current routine, and ultimately that won't be enough. He will be very damaging to mainstream Republicans, and they will ultimately cut him off at the knees. His fight with FOX will not end well for him. I have no idea who will replace him, though.
3) The Tea Party failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the lack of an economic foundation for their theories. Was the TARP program big spending, given that it has paid itself pack with interest, or would letting the banks blow up have been worse? Would not paying the Federal debt have been a viable strategy or a global disaster? If the former, they never made their case.
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Quote:
"Your immigration plan, it is full of empty promises," Ramos began. "You cannot deny citizenship to children born in this country."
"Why do you say that?" Trump replied. "Some of the great legal scholars agree that's not true.
Except it is true, lacking repeal of a part of the 14th Amendment.
not in an intellectual way, but in a personality way. Our political system would become a farce if he were nominated. That said, I would prefer him to the Tea Party. I actually like SOME of what he has to say...the corrupting influence of money in politics, illegal immigrants (though his solutions are idiotic), and the "born in America citizenship" issue. I lean left but am still conservative on many issues. The GOP and their candidates scare the shit out of me (the term "bat shit crazy comes to mind). Don't like Hillary. Not a big fan of Biden, but right now he's the only one out there that I could cast a vote for.
He was smart enough not to topple Hussein & all that that would bring. He deftly handled the collapse of the USSR. He signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with his sons.
Why that's very sporting of you. Name someone else in the last 50 years with a record on foreign policy as good as his. But you don't mind him.
But I have defended her when people say she's only where she is because of her husband (totally wrong & bordering on sexist)
Let's clear up something to start off. Hillary's not stupid. That's not the issue. HOWEVER, when you consider elective office, not an attorney's job at the Rose Law Firm, I think a very strong case can be made that she is such a shitty campaigner that she never would have been elected to anything but for her husband. Do you think she even would have been the Dem candidate for Senate in 2000 but for her husband. Andrew Cuomo would have been a lock for that candidacy.
I don't think Biden will run unless Clinton hits critical.... Â
Which doesn't seem likely, given that the most recent controversy doesn't seem to be sticking to her (long-term). All of Biden's recent moves were carefully crafted to get his name out there as a potential candidate and keep him in the mix without committing to anything (have Obama provide an empty soundbite, meet with party upstart/darling Warren, etc.), but we are very late into the game and Clinton has almost the entirety of the Obama ground game on her team already. Biden may be able to tap into some donors, but the establishment is pretty much coalesced around Clinton and she has a finely oiled machine already pounding the ground in key states for next November already.
Clinton also already has well-over 300 endorsements, though Biden - even without running - has a dozen. Considering Bernie Sanders has zero (unless you count Jesse "The Body" Ventura) and Martin O'Malley has 1, Biden can enter and comfortably assume the #2 position without much effort (save for places like New Hampshire and Oregon, where Bernie will capture the ultra liberal, ultra white vote). I just don't think he wants to run to make things interesting for the constituency, there has to be a clear path to the nomination and this late in the game it seems like Clinton has to completely implode to get anyone else on the ticket next November.
If that does happen, the DNC will not want to run Sanders (so as to guarantee a loss in the general), but timing is going to be a major component to this. Its almost too late already.
On Trump/Ramos - I do not like Trump, but Ramos' approach last night will do nothing but help Donald. We can strip back the outburst and how it was delivered and look at content alone, but the soundbite era of politics will see a guy violating decorum at an event to yell angrily at Trump and insert himself into a story. Maybe Trump has been avoiding him, but Ramos just ceded his position and will undoubtedly do Donald a favor with polling this coming week. I agree, he'll fade when we're out of the soundbites and into policy - but last night was not a good showing for detractors.
not in an intellectual way, but in a personality way. Our political system would become a farce if he were nominated. That said, I would prefer him to the Tea Party. I actually like SOME of what he has to say...the corrupting influence of money in politics, illegal immigrants (though his solutions are idiotic), and the "born in America citizenship" issue. I lean left but am still conservative on many issues. The GOP and their candidates scare the shit out of me (the term "bat shit crazy comes to mind). Don't like Hillary. Not a big fan of Biden, but right now he's the only one out there that I could cast a vote for.
Our political system is already a farce. Trump is the result of that.
Yep. I also liked the new attack he brought to Bush last night with regards to his relationship with Rubio, hadn't used that before. Watching him troll Bush incessantly and watching Jeb try to get his arms around it is the best theater of this cycle so far. If Jeb somehow gets through this he would have a lot of momentum and people would see him a standing up to the bully and going through him. But in that scenario I also think Trump runs 3rd party just out of spite and totally screw him
...and to me, he simply comes off as tired and depressed. Like he thought this was going to be handed to him. Everything he says blows up in his face, Wile E. Coyote.
Biden set himself to step in if Clinton implodes. And he probably has until Thanksgiving for that to happen.
Clinton implodes if:
* Any sort of indictment is handed down, or
* FBI discovers that her personal serve had security inferior to that of State's and that it was hacked by Russia, China, North Korea and/or Israel.
Agreed - although I think the Dems have a few things that play to their advantage in the presidential elections (demographics/electoral college breakdown), they cannot run someone like Bernie Sanders and expect to win. That will be a drubbing and this is likely their long-play to ensure they are (mostly) safe and have someone who can at least compete on a national level in a general.
To put on my tin-foil hat: I think there were a few backroom deals when Clinton stepped down in '08 and I'm assuming a clear path in '16 was part of that. That she has the Obama ground game and was running unopposed (more-or-less - they let in a few gadflies and fringers to not let it be just a coronation) makes that seem even more likely she had at least a few things promised to her. To this point, Biden only really got marched out when things escalated significantly and cracks started to appear. I do think she'll be ok, but he's there so the plan to let Clinton run uncontested doesn't backfire in their face.
Also, good points on Trump/Ramos. I was looking only at the context of the primary/Trump, but Ramos likely did more to win long-term than anything else.
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Telling lies and avoiding hard interviews. Sounds very Hillary like.
Jorge Ramos’s daughter works for Hillary campaign (paid employee) Â
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Telling lies and avoiding hard interviews. Sounds very Hillary like.
Focus, Al. Were talking about douchebag Trump now.
and manh isn't just whistling past the graveyard, he is leading an orchestra past it. To his credit, he has made his unquestioning devotion to the D party perfectly clear. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not post his opinions and assertions as fact.
When Ramos was let back in, Trump said "good to have you back", and Ramos was able to ask numerous follow-up questions and there was a lot of back and forth between he and Trump. You may not like the answers he gave, which is ok, but he gave Ramos opportunity to ask questions and follow-up.
and manh isn't just whistling past the graveyard, he is leading an orchestra past it. To his credit, he has made his unquestioning devotion to the D party perfectly clear. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not post his opinions and assertions as fact.
When Ramos was let back in, Trump said "good to have you back", and Ramos was able to ask numerous follow-up questions and there was a lot of back and forth between he and Trump. You may not like the answers he gave, which is ok, but he gave Ramos opportunity to ask questions and follow-up.
Would Hilary do something like that? How would she do? Watch for yourself - ( New Window )
see this is my problem. the media gives the "trump kicks out latino reporter" thats the headline to bring you in. People will take that and thats it. Not look into everything else. IM a latino and even i saw that Ramos was being disrespectful. Having Trump ignore him is your answer for Ramos but Ramos wants to make himself look like a big shot advocate when he is really a journalist. I mean cut the shit dude. You dont like him and you are trying to look like a victim by acting like an ass
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Telling lies and avoiding hard interviews. Sounds very Hillary like.
Focus, Al. Were talking about douchebag Trump now.
Two douchebags in a pod.
I am uncomfortably siding with Trump on the Ramos thing Â
so there's probably more to it than "I'm just a reporter".
On the immigration issue Ramos has been an advocate long before his daughter began to work for Hillary. And he won.
Not only has "Network" proven to be prescient with respect to television and television news, it's now become prescient with respect to our politics as well.
RE: RE: Jorge Ramos’s daughter works for Hillary campaign (paid employee) Â
so there's probably more to it than "I'm just a reporter".
On the immigration issue Ramos has been an advocate long before his daughter began to work for Hillary. And he won.
Not only has "Network" proven to be prescient with respect to television and television news, it's now become prescient with respect to our politics as well.
Yes but he is a journalist first. And when you are in there, journalists are there. Not advocates. Sorry but its making idiot trump relevant
However, if you watch ANY Beltway press conferences, the so-called reporters usually come in with an agenda, not a list of neutral questions. Even more so out on the campaign trail. Nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
And, Ramos had tried like heck to get a one-on-one with the single candidate of most concern to his constituency, and Trump has ducked him. So, he brought up his issues at a press conference. Why should he not?
Oh, and btw, yes, Trump let him back in and answered his questions--without Ramos having a mike, of course. But if you read any description as to why that happened, it was far from in a vacuum. Several reporters from other stations talked to Trump and his staff and convinced him to do it.
However, if you watch ANY Beltway press conferences, the so-called reporters usually come in with an agenda, not a list of neutral questions. Even more so out on the campaign trail. Nothing unusual about that whatsoever.
And, Ramos had tried like heck to get a one-on-one with the single candidate of most concern to his constituency, and Trump has ducked him. So, he brought up his issues at a press conference. Why should he not?
Oh, and btw, yes, Trump let him back in and answered his questions--without Ramos having a mike, of course. But if you read any description as to why that happened, it was far from in a vacuum. Several reporters from other stations talked to Trump and his staff and convinced him to do it.
You can have an agenda, meaning you want answers to specific questions. But the line is if you are personally motivated by your own views to ask those questions or if you only want them for journalistic content. There is too much of the former and not enough of the latter in media today.
to create a soundbite. First he interrupted another reporter rather than waiting his turn, and then he wouldn't stop. Trump rightly said I'm answering this persons question now, but Ramos just wanted the headline that he was getting kicked out. Then to Trumps credit, he brought Ramos back in and did answer a number of questions (three I think). Even then Ramos kept interrupting Trump's answers.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
RE: I listened to this thing live, and in my view Ramos was just there Â
to create a soundbite. First he interrupted another reporter rather than waiting his turn, and then he wouldn't stop. Trump rightly said I'm answering this persons question now, but Ramos just wanted the headline that he was getting kicked out. Then to Trumps credit, he brought Ramos back in and did answer a number of questions (three I think). Even then Ramos kept interrupting Trump's answers.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
Again, they both got what they wanted but it will hurt Trump if he reaches the general.
I guess my question would be what else could Trump have done? Â
to create a soundbite. First he interrupted another reporter rather than waiting his turn, and then he wouldn't stop. Trump rightly said I'm answering this persons question now, but Ramos just wanted the headline that he was getting kicked out. Then to Trumps credit, he brought Ramos back in and did answer a number of questions (three I think). Even then Ramos kept interrupting Trump's answers.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
Again, they both got what they wanted but it will hurt Trump if he reaches the general.
Who is it going to hurt him with? His supporters love this stuff.
I previously said it would help him in the primaries and hurt him in the general. It will hurt him with independent voters (few though they might be) and moderate Republicans. And it will lock down what was already a vast Hispanic vote for the Democratic candidate and might even spur turn out.
Long term (meaning past the primaries) Ramos won this by a mile
He could have said: "I will answer a question from you right after I finish with this reporter," rather than "Sit down. Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called. Go back to Univision."
And then he could have told Ramos: "OK now it is your turn to ask one question. If you have more than that, we will have to set up a separate interview when it fits my schedule."
The problem with that, of course, is that he has been ducking Ramos since he made his first smarmy Mexican Immigrant comment. But he would certainly have been within his rights to limit his response to a single question, and he could have kept control of the situation by saying that Ramos would be next.
Trump just can't help being a bully. An experienced politician would have certainly handled it differently.
RE: The fight between Trump and FOX is starting to get really interesting Â
As I always suspected but had insufficient proof, Trump's temperament problems will be what ultimately do him in.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
Please. I wouldn't be surprised if Ailes and Trump got together and cooked up the whole thing. Trump beholden to no one, not a creature of Fox News, an independent voice blah blah blah. Where's Fox going to go if Trump is the nominee? Hilary?
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Exactly why having a "fight" with Fox News isn't a bad thing for him. Trump has been in the public eye for 30 years and has thousands of interviews and appearances under his belt, some hostile. Headhunter has been trying to tell you guys not to underestimate Trump.
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Looks like a move of disaffected Democrats to Independent affiliation post-2008 as well.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
Obviously to early to mean much, but Biden does substantially better against the Republican field than Hillary, and among those targetted, only Rubio is about even with Sanders. Rubio seems surprisingly strong overall.
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Trump 41 Clinton +4
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 42, Bush 40 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Rubio 43 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac
Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
General Election: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 45, Bush 39 Biden +6
General Election: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 44, Rubio 41 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 44, Trump 41 Sanders +3
General Election: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 39, Sanders 43 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 41, Sanders 40 Rubio +1
Biden isn't my preferred candidate in a perfect world Â
But Warren isn't entering and Bernie probably isn't electable. Those on the right who just laugh at the mere mention of Biden and have created this caricature of "crazy uncle joe" can underestimate him at their own risk though. He could be president. It's not likely but it is possible.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
ummm no.. the only reason Republicans are doing better at state and local levels is that have Gobs and Gobs more money - also they smartly have concentrated on state and local level while democrats political apparatus is DC centric .
in 2005 howard dean as head of DNC started 50 state strategy which was to send money and support to every state and challenge republicans everywhere.. and it worked!! with Democrats taking back congress in 2006 .
But when Obama won 2008 and by proxy Rahm took over the DNC the first thing he did was dismantle 50 state strategy saying it was a waste of money.
Meanwhile Republicans actually adopted some of the ideas of Demcrats 50 state strategy (especially the social media parts) and low and behold they are not dominating at local and state level.
stupid democrats and their DC media consultants suck!
The notion that age in and of itself would exclude Biden is pretty silly. Bernie and Hillary would both have a tough time playing that card. Bernie is even older and Hillary will be pushing 70 herself. The top democrat enters the general with a demographic edge that's tough to beat. Whoever the democratic candidate is is going to be old, and they're going to still be favored
Giant Fan, there are so many other things going on. Â
I work in state and local finance, so I know a little about this stuff.
Yes, the Republican strategy helps, but I could give you about a dozen other reasons. I will give you four that come quickly to mind.
1) The Democratic turnout problem in off-year elections, when Republicans make massive gains.
2) The shape of districts, with Democratic voters over-represented in urban districts and under-representated in the larger number of suburban and rural districts.
3) The increased Gerrymandering after the last census and the 2010 Republican rout.
4) Perhaps most importantly, anti-tax sentiment at the state and local level which puts the Democrats, who are usually aligned with the civil service unions, behind the eight ball. Massive pension problems nationwide are just going to make this worse, as judge after judge makes it difficult or impossible for governments--and the taxpayers they represent--to cut back on overpromising for pensions done over decades that are coming home to roost now. Need a new bridge? A new school? Sorry, the pensions come first.
The latter is compounded, of course, by publicity over the unconscionable level of pensions for a relatively few retirees, especially cops, firemen and elected officials. In Yonkers, the gap between the average police and fire pension and that of other government workers is $97,237 to $35,605. And the police and firemen can legally double dip. Think that pisses off a few voters?
The notion that age in and of itself would exclude Biden is pretty silly. Bernie and Hillary would both have a tough time playing that card. Bernie is even older and Hillary will be pushing 70 herself. The top democrat enters the general with a demographic edge that's tough to beat. Whoever the democratic candidate is is going to be old, and they're going to still be favored
With that said, I don't think the democrats have a strong political athlete this cycle. As Chuck Todd mentioned, the country typically doesn't go backwards in generations when electing a president which is what we'd do coming off of Obama. I wish the left had a younger more inspiring candidate.
this bunch of Republican candidates has flaws that far exceed those of, say, Biden. The link tracks 144 national polls. Yeah, he's old. Yeah, he bumbles sometimes. But he would start with the Democratic numerical advantage in the graph I posted above, and on social issues, there is little doubt that the country has moved left, while the Republican base has moved right. This will be a big problem, even before you get to the flawed candidates who can't even attract their own base.
Right now, Trump and Carson together are getting 35.7% of "votes." What does that say about the attractiveness of mainstream candidates? Link - ( New Window )
Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
In 2008 and 2012, Obama LOST the overall Male vote. Women delivered the White House to him. That's more important than Black, Hispanic, Asian.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Unless Hillary self-destructs, it's gonna be a fucking rout. If Obama could kick Romney's ass the way he did, imagine what a white woman can do. And I don't give a shit about how she's vilified by the media and by 'Clinton Rules' - it isn't even going to come close to the crap Obama got.
This e-mail thing simply doesn't have the teeth to take her down, barring any new revelations. Neither does Benghazi. If the Community Organizing, America-Hating, Gun Stealing, Secret Muslim with a fake Birth Certificate could overcome it, I'm pretty sure Hillary will be just fine.
And again - I'm not a Hillary supporter. Just calling it how I see it.
RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
between demographics and elections. By Real Clear Politics reporters/analysts.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That's a GREAT link. What I found most interesting is that I plugged in a number of scenarios where Jeb Bush won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college vs. Hillary. Others, with a slightly higher white % for Bush but lower white turnout reversed the results in the electoral college. I think these results would hold true for Kasich and Rubio, at a minimum among Republican candidates, as well.
As far as Trump-Clinton was concerned I bumped BOTH the % of Hispanic votes for Clinton and the % turnout and got a Clinton electoral vote landslide. Kept the white vote for Trump at 60% but increased the % turnout. Didn't matter. Armageddon in the Electoral College
RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
How would the media react if it was the other way around? Â
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Trumps misogynism for instance, has an impact... Â
...so do nice comments like this one today, from Alex Jones - free propaganda for Democrats: " “Hey Hillary, you got bodyguards. Are their guns bad too? Why can’t I have a gun to protect myself, you bitch?”"
RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
I guess you missed this from earlier this month:
Quote:
In June, 44 percent of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, edging out the 43 percent who didn’t. By July, those numbers shifted: Only 34 percent of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53 percent who had a negative impression of her, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Obama had worse in 2008? Surely you jest. The only way Obama would have had the equivalent baggage is if he had written Rev. Wright's sermons himself. He wasn't getting media coverage because he was a curiosity good for ratings, he got it because he was the media's Messiah! 2012 wasn't as stratospheric (see ACA rollout) but they sure nailed Romney on the 47% comment as well as his take (accurate as it turned out though the media refuses to acknowledge it) on Putin and Russia.
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
As said above, you couldn't be more wrong about 2008. And are you suggesting the birth certificate kerfluffle was serious baggage? The media destroyed anyone who suggested it had merit and he sat back, chuckled and knew he just got another 5000 votes (exactly what he should have done, by the way).
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
McCain got destroyed by the September meltdown and the Palin meltdown. Right candidate, bad timing. Romney got stereotyped and mocked even when he was right. And you think Obama dealt with insanity.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
They actually have a number of candidates as strong, it's just that they're dealing with a media phenomenon that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The reaction and lack of fallout with respect to Trump's comments about McCain's time as a POW suggests strongly he would be doing no better this time around.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Too early to say it won't be close. Let's see where the server leads
Well the opp research has lost one thing on Trump Â
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08' and 12'?!
Yeah, we're on the same planet, different worlds, big time.
For starters - PALLED AROUND WITH TERRORISTS!
REVEREND WRIGHT!!!
- FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- SECRET MUSLIM
- COMMUNIST FATHER!
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
Add to that the fearmongering over Obamacare.
They got the base out. In SPADES. Fear Factor to the nth degree.
The problem is, the base isn't there any more. More and more die off each year.
...secret Muslim, Communist Father, Marxist labels - this crap was all there from the beginning.
No, he didn't have Benghazi or e-mail - but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
His advantage in 08' was that it wasn't clear that he would be the Candidate for most of the campaign season - right wing was gunning for Hillary - Obama slipped under the radar.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Excellent, interesting discussion of the link... Â
Which issues around in 2008 didn't deserve scorn and derision?
Lack of experience. Totally legit.
The birther and most of the other stuff was BS, although I thought he could be legitimately questioned about whether he agreed with the teachings of Rev. Wright.
The point is that the media, outside of the Rev. Wright story didn't take the stories and run with them. They mocked them. So the thought that Obama was under relentless broad based attack on them in 2008 is simply not the case.
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
RE: RE: Reverand Wright, Pals around with Terrorists... Â
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
It IS a totally legitimate issue.
It was a negative.
Just as a e-mail scandal is a negative. I'd venture to say that Obama's inexperience was a bigger negative factor in 08' then Hillary's e-mail scandal will be in 16'.
Time will tell.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
Lack of experience = negative but not a fundamental character flaw
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
RE: RE: RE: Reverand Wright, Pals around with Terrorists... Â
Lack of experience = negative but not a fundamental character flaw
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
Wait a minute.
After 25 years of Clinton Bashing - THIS is what's going to make people finally not trust her?
OK.
Look - it's an ugly little scandal. Transparency dodging in it's worst form. Same as other Administrations and elected officials have been burned many times with.
If it really does come down to some sort of indictment, that's another story.
But if it doesn't? As Clinton scandals go? BOOOOO-RING!
Come on! Vince Foster, man! Connected to the DEATHS of Eighty-Something people! THAT is a Clinton Scandal. A SMELLY CIGAR is a Clinton Scandal.
E-mail. Please.
This is Hillary Clinton. She's like the friggin Terminator.
Given her opposition? The walking Biden gaffe machine or the Stammering Spitting Socialist on one side - the other side trying to outdo one another in outrageous comments.
Donald Trump. Seriously. THAT is how bad the Republican field is this year.
Marco Rubio would be dangerous if not for that pesky one issue - really, I think he's the most potent Republican candidate since Reagan.
or
the oligarchy
???
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
Bush comes across like a spineless wimp, and we all know what an unethical, dishonest, horrible human being Hillary Clinton is.
Give me a Rubio/Fiorina ticket.
At some point next year, sh!t gets serious, the # candidates whittle down and Trump goes back to being the sideshow clown that he is.
Do we really need a new thread on him every week?
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
We've talked about it on other threads but it's not just a Republican appeal, that is true. And from what I gather (and this is anecdotally) it's not just angry white people either, though I would imagine his unfavorables among Hispanic voters are close to triple digits. Hillary Clinton is just that repulsive, and Jeb Bush just that utterly uninspiring, and people wonder why in the fuck this is the best we can do.
That being said, it is still very early so anything can happen. I think Kasich is a guy with a charisma and personality who could take off if he makes it far enough.
Jeb and Walker have been shockingly bad. Robotic, no spine, sort of aloof.
þ@tobyharnden
Page 1, today's @thesundaytimes: @realDonaldTrump tried to woo Princess Diana, saw her as "the ultimate trophy wife"
That being said, it is still very early so anything can happen. I think Kasich is a guy with a charisma and personality who could take off if he makes it far enough.
Jeb and Walker have been shockingly bad. Robotic, no spine, sort of aloof.
Reagan was the governor of the most populous state in the country and had been speaking with a relatively consistent message on political affairs for a generation. He was also a man who had genuine appeal to broad swaths of people, even among some who disagreed with him. Trump is the anti-Reagan.
that you would think would laugh at Trump love him.
Being "smart and successful" and being a "low information wingnut" are not remotely mutually exclusive.
he'd been governor of California and active in politics for decades.
he nearly won the Republican nomination in 1976.
Trump's presidential pedigree is closer to Obama (and I do not mean this as an insult one bit) than Reagan.
þ@tobyharnden
Page 1, today's @thesundaytimes: @realDonaldTrump tried to woo Princess Diana, saw her as "the ultimate trophy wife"
So whats the spin? She was the ultimate trophy wife, and the Donald spent alot time and money trying to get her on his boat (anybody remember that enormous rig he used to park at the Water Club? It had a funny name and he wound up selling it to a Saudi during one of his flirts with bankruptcy). And of course he wound up with Marla Maples, who he picked up at church and was a far cry from Lady Di.
Just more of The Donald. When you go into his past that's typical of what you'll find.
Plus, of course, there is ample time for many of his supporters to get tired of him as the flavor du jour.
Plus, plus, his history of liberal views in many areas, possibly aside from illegal immigration, won't fly in a lot of states after Iowa and NH. But there is an excellent chance he will stay around long enough to make things very messy for the ultimate candidate.
And, his views on immigration are typical: he has staked out a position so extreme that even a lot of Republicans will end up uncomfortable.
Still think Hillary gets the nomination unless something full-blown indictable is laid at her doorstep--not at one of her team's. Bernie has a ceiling, too, and no ground game. Biden has no ground game either, and he will inevitably say some really stupid things, because he's Biden.
Donalds Duck - ( New Window )
I don't think it's a given that everyone will suddenly flock to Jeb Bush. He probably picks up Fiorino fans, Rubio fans, Christie fans too but that doesnt add up to that much...
Here is a telling table from past elections.
The level of your ceiling matters a lot, and Trump's is low. Will Tea Party Activists and others who tend to vote in primaries flock to a candidate whose positions they don;t trust at all? Doubtful.
Trump's six stages of doom. - ( New Window )
Show people you have a pulse. Be who you are, that your comfortable within your own skin. Say what you mean and defend it.
The Trump phenomenon is really not all about him (all though I'm sure he would like you to believe otherwise). It's the same reason why Bernie & Carson are currently doing well. Imo also why Reagan and Obama were successful candidates.
The candidate that "stops" Trump is the candidate that decides to put all their chips on themselves.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
The candidate that "stops" Trump is the candidate that decides to put all their chips on themselves.
Sounds like a job for this guy:
It's my belief (hope?) that the Trumpistas are more of a fringe group than what I saw as a more rational Tea Party group (despite the MSM). Many in the latter were disillusioned, rather than fired up when they voted "their guys" in, and nothing happened despite promises. (ObamaCare, immigration etc)
For those reasons, I see (hope?) the other "non-establishment" candidates (Cruz, Carson, Carly, et al; maybe even Rubio) in the long run gathering most of the votes from those currently not supporting Trump.
The WORST thing other candidates (and right leaning media) can do is attack Donald. That would only add to the angry supporters who think he is being treated unfairly, and could even trigger an irrational third party run.
Carson 12
Cruz 10
Bush 9
Huckabee and Walker 6
Fiorina 5
The Dem poll (also by Fox) has Clinton at 49%, Sanders 30% and Biden 10%. That race may be getting serious.
Quote:
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
Cruz, Walker, Santorum are basically the same guy from the point of view of the less locally interested or casual right winger.
You can add Paul if you like, I think he is different that those guys, much more moderate in certain positions (listen carefully, he refused to condemn gay marriage, instead taking the position of getting the government/the state, out of the marriage business...which is a great idea).
Nevertheless, take any candidate from the right, other than Trump...as the option to Trump vs Hillz...and that 'any' candidate beats Trump by 80/20.
Ditto any of the moderates, Florio/Rubio/Kasich. as the option, 80/20.
Once again, the media has been truly idiotic on this.
Cruz, Walker, Santorum are basically the same guy from the point of view of the less locally interested or casual right winger.
You can add Paul if you like, I think he is different that those guys, much more moderate in certain positions (listen carefully, he refused to condemn gay marriage, instead taking the position of getting the government/the state, out of the marriage business...which is a great idea).
Nevertheless, take any candidate from the right, other than Trump...as the option to Trump vs Hillz...and that 'any' candidate beats Trump by 80/20.
Ditto any of the moderates, Florio/Rubio/Kasich. as the option, 80/20.
Once again, the media has been truly idiotic on this.
Cruz, Walker and Santorum are different candidates with very different constituencies. Santorum has limited traction outside the religious right. Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party and fellow travelers. And Walker is liked among much of the base for his attacks on public sector unions in Wisconsin but doesn't have an obvious constituency of GOP voters.
I thought it appropriate to the whole mess.
Quote:
In comment 12421493 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
BOO! I reject the two party system. They are the biggest problem in American politics, IMO.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
it won't be Sanders ever.
Quote:
In comment 12421780 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12421493 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
party primary, so like you, being concerned more with the other party candidate than the one from the party I generally support I am voting in the Democratic primary for whoever has a chance against Hillary.
Less important to me than who the Republicans nominate is the fear of god that Hillary Clinton might someday be the most powerful person on the planet and the leader of our great country. that is the train that needs to be stopped.
I might do that too here in Georgia. I'll vote for Bernie unless there is a R who I really want to win.
Nothing about Trump of Republicans or Democrats, but I wanted to say that I have always found that type of primary to be abhorrent and one of the most anti-democratic things in our whole system. Whether he's a great guy or an abominable douche, the party and only the party members should get to say who represents them and their ideology in the election.
BOO! I reject the two party system. They are the biggest problem in American politics, IMO.
That's fine for a general election. But primaries are an election only for one party or the other, so whether or not there should be more than one party is not relevant to that. The primary is for the party to decide upon the best candidate to present their message, so it makes no sense for non party members to influence that.
Quote:
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
it won't be Sanders ever.
Just a point, the 'hits' that Hillary is taking are of her own making and are being delivered by the FBI. The 'right' has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
good post man george I agree with everything you said except
Quote:
The proportion of Republicans who won't vote for him under any circumstances remains extremely high. A ceiling of 30% or so can get you to the Convention, but he will be ripped to shreds there by whomever in the top one or two of other candidates at that time the establishment leadership decides to back.
if you look back at past 2 republican primaries - McCain and Romney were both polling in 30% range at beginning . The way the Republican primary system is set up .. the front runner has huge advantage in that the front runner can grab the most delegates even if they have a plurality rather than majority win ... . but that is if they can translate their front runner status to delegates.
This is where Trump could slip up .. He could be first or second in early primaries but not have the ground gain to translate these wins into delegates
But He has tapped into something that is resonating with people. which is he is anti politician . .
If Hillary can survive the hit jobs from the right then she will be fine
If she bows up then it is going to be a wild Democratic primary
I can see Biden , Al Gore jumping in and a draft Lizzy Warren movement happening
it won't be Sanders ever.
Just a point, the 'hits' that Hillary is taking are of her own making and are being delivered by the FBI. The 'right' has nothing to do with it.
Take for example his retort on the ACA - "I'd replace it with something terrific...and work out a really smart deal with hospitals."
What?
He's quotable. Angry. Arrogant. And completely full of shit. Like his supporters.
You can have a candidate that has all these well thought out policies that you agree with. And then they get into office and they either don't or can't do any of them. People think Trump will do what he says.
And I will say this. The hit job mantra might work with the Democratic faithful with respect to any criminal charges. But what would finish Hillary's candidacy, and I believe one of the things the FBI is looking at, is whether the server was hacked. Now perhaps wiping clean might have erased evidence with regards to hacking, but a discovery that her home brewed server was hacked by Russia or China would be fatal.
Flipping the 14th Amendment? Great.
What's sad is the amount of Americans who love the hate-filled rhetoric.
Disgusting, and seriously frigging embarrassing that someone like this is leading a major Party race.
By no means am I saying they have a chance to win. Rather, the non-fringe type candidates could learn a lesson.
As a Democrat, I'll take my odds versus aby of them with the exception of Rubio.
Trump is a fad.
Other candidates will run attack ads, not just about what he says, but about what he doesn't say.
"Donald Trump says he has a secret plan to defeat ISIS, defeat China economically, and replace Obamacare, among many other things. Before you vote for him to Represent Republicans as a presidential candidate, wouldn't you like to know what those secret plans are? Tell Donald to show us his plans."
Then of course, he will come up with nothing, and begin to fade, if he hasn't already.
Take for example his retort on the ACA - "I'd replace it with something terrific...and work out a really smart deal with hospitals."
What?
He's quotable. Angry. Arrogant. And completely full of shit. Like his supporters.
Most of his supporters are fed up with the same old shit, not full of it. Dumb statement.
As for his comments, there isn't a politician alive who utters anything more than generic soundbite stuff in public, like 'I'll only spy on those who need spying on and leave the honest folk alone'.
Winning a presidential primary isn't about popularity, not at this stage, anyway. Poll numbers are nice because good numbers bring in money and support. But to actually win the primary, you need an organization. You need a ground game. You need people knocking on doors and making phone calls.
You also need to fucking work every day, pressing the flesh with the peons and visiting every tiny town in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The old maxim that bad generals talk about tactics and great ones talk about logistics applies here in spades.
That is why he is full of shit. He's got nothing alternative to offer, other than anger to feed his fearful, bigoted followers, who remind me a lot of the Yonkers yokels on HBO last night.
BASH: So, you’re in the Oval Office, you’re saying, Obamacare…
TRUMP: It’s got to go.
BASH: It’s got to go.
TRUMP: Repeal and replace with something terrific
Link - ( New Window )
Winning a presidential primary isn't about popularity, not at this stage, anyway. Poll numbers are nice because good numbers bring in money and support. But to actually win the primary, you need an organization. You need a ground game. You need people knocking on doors and making phone calls.
You also need to fucking work every day, pressing the flesh with the peons and visiting every tiny town in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The old maxim that bad generals talk about tactics and great ones talk about logistics applies here in spades.
Your right. Also, if Trump stays in for the long haul he better start working on his policies & what exactly he's gonna do to actually fix the mess we're in & let the public in on it. Bluster will only last so long.
Quote:
BASH: So, you’re in the Oval Office, you’re saying, Obamacare…
TRUMP: It’s got to go.
BASH: It’s got to go.
TRUMP: Repeal and replace with something terrific
Link - ( New Window )
Sounds like a man with a plan!
And then he needs a plan to replace the low-cost farm and domestic workers nearly everyone prefers to lets stay with a wink and a nod, after he kicks out 11.5 million illegals. Does he have a guest worker program? What does it look like?
Trump supporters are the same people Roger Ailes targets all the time: the folks who have been pissing their pants and spewing conspiracy theories in the face of a massive demographic shift in the US, that has gained momentum and shifted white people into soon-to-be-minority status. Oh shit, we're going to lose our unearned advantage over everybody else!
If you support Trump because "ZOMG BILLIONAIRE!!!1111" ... take a look at his record in Atlantic City. Yeah, do that to the rest of the US.
*head-desk*
He's an entertainer; a snake oil salesman, and he's running an entirely ego-driven campaign to avenge his public humiliation by President Obama at the Correspondents Dinner, the night Obama killed Bin Laden.
A man with a plan!
What kind of a plan?
A plan to make a plan! A plan to make a plan to save the plan-it!
He will Trumpet it to the the world!
Actually, its a plan to save a smaller world than ours. A planetoid, as it were. We will call it Pluto!
Trump supporters are the same people Roger Ailes targets all the time: the folks who have been pissing their pants and spewing conspiracy theories in the face of a massive demographic shift in the US, that has gained momentum and shifted white people into soon-to-be-minority status. Oh shit, we're going to lose our unearned advantage over everybody else!
If you support Trump because "ZOMG BILLIONAIRE!!!1111" ... take a look at his record in Atlantic City. Yeah, do that to the rest of the US.
*head-desk*
He's an entertainer; a snake oil salesman, and he's running an entirely ego-driven campaign to avenge his public humiliation by President Obama at the Correspondents Dinner, the night Obama killed Bin Laden.
Guess you're not gonna be wearing a "Make America Great" hat anytime soon.
That is why he is full of shit. He's got nothing alternative to offer, other than anger to feed his fearful, bigoted followers, who remind me a lot of the Yonkers yokels on HBO last night.
You forgot misogynistic.
Cohen said there are more men that work for the company in “most respects,” but added that there are more female executives at the Trump organization than men.
“Women who are similarly situated in positions…are actually paid more,” he added.
“And you can prove it? Sounds too good to be true,” CNN host Chris Cuomo responded.
But Cohen claimed he certainly can prove it. Watch the segment via CNN:
Meanwhile Hillary is all over War on Women, but pays the women on her staff less than the men.
Link - ( New Window )
Well done news...
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
he builds himself up and tears apart his rivals is a thing of beauty. The first couple of times you hear him do it, you get repulsed or pissed or whatever. The more he does it, the more you see how effective it is.
Taft is probably more infamous for being fat, but he was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court aside from his other political positions.
Taft is probably more infamous for being fat, but he was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court aside from his other political positions.
I'm pretty sure that all of the past POTUS were over 36 years of age and born US citizens. Them's the qualifications.
too easy, my friend.
Here's Steve Ballmer at a microsoft presentation, not a pro wrestling event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
2) Make sure that when casinos you are involved in go bankrupt, it's a corporate bankruptcy, and you already sold your ownership share.
There hasn't been any real discussion yet of the 4 corporate bankruptcies Trump has been involved in. There will be, I promise.
Here's Steve Ballmer at a microsoft presentation, not a pro wrestling event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
Yes, I'd say buffoon and billionaire are a common combination.
And that's according to Trump, right?
The link below breaks down his current wealth. He's exaggerating publicly.
Bloomberg - ( New Window )
I found an old picture of one.
As you get closer to the actual election, policy positions, policy knowledge, historical weaknesses to target, a low ceiling of voters who are willing to accept him, and lack
of ground staff all matter. He has no ground game whatsoever. In this modern era, that matters a lot.
Link - ( New Window )
Most likely doesn't get the nomination but I'm not counting him out yet.
And last of all, the massive blitz of media spending comes much later, where super-PACs will crap all over him. He isn't going to get super-PAC support.
What makes you think the sanctions (snap back to be specific) are going hold if we don't skip out. Russia has already had Soleimani in for talks and announced they will sell Iran the S-300 air defense system as well. Once they get their $60-150 billion that treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on.
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
Actually, IIRC, Dan Rather came flat out in a press conference and asked Nixon if he were a criminal.
2) They didn't claim to be big supporters of women, while having a laundry list of vile comments about specific women in their prior history.
It was an absolutely valid question under the circumstances, and if he had an actual political staff like real presidential candidates do, he would have been prepared for it.
Maybe the coverage at the time stuck to the big stuff and didn't get stuck on appearances or "defining" the candidate. Kennedy made Bill Clinton seem like St Paul the Apostle, slept with a Soviet spy, got his PT boat cut in half by a destroyer when he and the crew were either drunk or asleep, and may have been addicted to painkillers. Nixon thoroughly enjoyed his cocktails-often. There were people who knew this stuff but it didn't come out because it wasn't thought pertinent or important and it would diminish the office. I don't know that they were wrong in doing so.
As to the OP's point, Trump will fade as others take up some of the things he says and does that seem to attract support. It already may have started: Sanders said he is not going to apologize to Black Lives Matter.
MG you keep on deflecting? Why?
BASH: So, you’re in the Oval Office, you’re saying, Obamacare…
TRUMP: It’s got to go.
BASH: It’s got to go.
TRUMP: Repeal and replace with something terrific
Note he does not say he will repeal it.....
2) Grass roots is different from professional operatives;
3) As we get further into the political season, the super-PACS will be on him like white on rice. So will the Washington mainstream republican base. None of the major money that isn't his comes from anyone with a reason to support him; and
4) The 30% or so cap to his favorability will matter as the number of opponents dwindle.
5) The number of skeletons in his closet is massive, and the smarter operatives against him are still holding their fire on those.
Have you seen anything to the contrary on any of these five points?
2) These are not all grassroots supporters on his ground team, most are paid pros
3) He expects to be attacked by super PAC's
4) I dont know what his peak is, probably around that number
5) Bring on the skeletons if you have them, I'm sure he is aware of them
He has multiple ex-wives and personal issues; yet no-one continues to bear an axe, some - Ivanka - even activitely support him.
Don't know how he did it.
They already ran with an article where his wife said he raped her (during their divorce) and she comes out, says it's not true and that he'd be a great President.
He touched the third rail of immigration and his support ballooned.
He said John McCain wasn't a war hero, again, no issue.
He attacked Megyn Kelly with a sexist rant about her bleeding, doesn't seem to have had an effect.
Everyone knows about his bankruptcies, that he donated to Hillary, that he said he wanted single payer, and that hasn't stopped him.
I've said all along that Trump and some of the other non-establishment candidates are the people's way of saying Fuck You to the establishment government, political consultants and the media. People seem to be responding more to his way of saying things than the details of what he is saying. Until they find someone who better represents what they think/feel, Trump will remain.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
Taft is probably more infamous for being fat, but he was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court aside from his other political positions.
The current 1.
No one is spending money like that yet. They will. I would bet they could make 20 attack ads against him just out of stuff he has said that's on you-tube.
Debates matter, especially when you get past the "secret plan" phase.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
Hey Les, given Toronto's recent history of selection of mayors I'd say that's not limited to the US. I do concede, however, that your elections are held in a much more reasonable timeframe.
Debates matter, especially when you get past the "secret plan" phase.
Quote:
is a legit candidate. in a country where celebrity matters, where former actors, pro football players, bodybuilding champions and WWF wrestlers have been presidents, governors of major states, it is no surprise that a guy like trump is in the lead.
many americans tune in to shows with simple concepts and catchphrases - WWE, honeybooboo, the kardashians, storage wars....if you are bold, speak confidently and can speak to the lowest common denominator, not to mention back it up with celebrity, a lot of people will get attached.
Hey Les, given Toronto's recent history of selection of mayors I'd say that's not limited to the US. I do concede, however, that your elections are held in a much more reasonable timeframe.
How long has it been since someone told you you were an idiot?
Actually, the Christie - Huckabee discussion of entitlements was one of the better moments of the evening. That's the kind of thing I'm looking forward to in these events and rarely see.
Wow, I haven't heard that since 7th grade. I didn't know you made it that far in school Rich.
Quote:
Blood answer. Do you trust anything that can bleed for 5 days and still live?
How long has it been since someone told you you were an idiot?
Last time I saw that was on a Law & Order episode. Eventually I feel like you will inspire one. Not sure in what capacity, but it seems likely.
Nothing wrong with Marthas Vinyard and golfing at Farm neck if your the president. B
They already ran with an article where his wife said he raped her (during their divorce) and she comes out, says it's not true and that he'd be a great President.
He touched the third rail of immigration and his support ballooned.
He said John McCain wasn't a war hero, again, no issue.
He attacked Megyn Kelly with a sexist rant about her bleeding, doesn't seem to have had an effect.
Everyone knows about his bankruptcies, that he donated to Hillary, that he said he wanted single payer, and that hasn't stopped him.
I've said all along that Trump and some of the other non-establishment candidates are the people's way of saying Fuck You to the establishment government, political consultants and the media. People seem to be responding more to his way of saying things than the details of what he is saying. Until they find someone who better represents what they think/feel, Trump will remain.
I think what is resonating with his followers and other Americans are that he is precisely describing what is wrong with our system, in that our pre-chosen leaders do not serve the people, but rather corporate and big government interests (military, internal).
He has repeatedly told every American that will listen that our politicians are bought and they do not serve us. What he does is up to imagination and his policies reveal, but I think it suggests that Americans are tired of playing the fool, as they know these guys are just a bunch of liars and snake oil salesmen. He is stepping up and Americans have a choice. You see exactly how cowardly many of the Republicans are in that they will not even defend themselves as they know they are stooges to their puppet masters and handlers. They want their sugar daddies to fix it for them. I think he has a great chance if he can survive some type of "hidden threat" to him. Sanders will never win as he won't fly in the South.
There is some game theory going on here. Why should candidate X use his powder against Trump while he is popular, with 16 other candidates in the field? Wait until this gets whittled down, and watch the knives come out, along with lots of media buys.
Also, some people here are confused over the difference between populist and conservative. Trump appeals to some populists, but not to conservative ones, and especially not to the Religious Right or true fiscal conservatives/Tea Partiers. Ultimately, these groups will cluster against him when it matters.
And, when it gets whittled down, his lack of political experience will become glaringly obvious. Obama has been awful in dealing with Congress, but Trump has no proof that he would be even as good. That stuff matters.
Really.
I get the anti-Establishment narrative, and I understand that there are lessons to be learned from this campaign whether it peters out in a month or in a year. But at the end of the day Trump is a clownish fucking buffoon, and everything about his campaign is a despicable troll job perpetrated on the American public. Trump is Rich Houston if Rich Houston had a team of sycophants to follow him around and cheer him on.
Lmao
Now, all of those ideas have been embraced by Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican presidential race, who has followed up weeks of doom-saying about illegal immigrants with a call for an unprecedented crackdown. On Monday, Trump’s hard turn was already influencing the rest of the GOP field. In Iowa, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also began to call for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, echoing a longtime Trump demand. Walker said the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories is proof that the concept could work here.
Walker also seemed to echo Trump by questioning “birthright citizenship,” the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to anyone born in this country. After a reporter asked if birthright citizenship should be ended, Walker said: “I think that’s something we should — yeah, absolutely, going forward.”
But — in a sign of how quickly Trump has changed the terms of this race — Walker had difficulty clearly articulating where exactly he stands on the issue, wanting to steal some of Trump’s momentum but not quite sure to what extent. He went on to say that if the United States enforces the laws it already has, that alone might take care of the problem.
Put on your right turn signal. - ( New Window )
That isn't easy, and it's one of the reasons Trump is skating, for now.
I've been agreeing with you right down the line. I think people who are underestimating are downplaying Trumps chances are in for a surprise.
His logic in this case just makes sense.
Well the same was said about Bloomberg -- He was self financed so he didn't owe anyone anything but the wealthy real estate and finance guys are his friends and his fellow plutocrats
so in the end Bloomberg did their bidding and nothing really changed in NYC except it got more expensive for poor and middle class to live here.
Quote:
That is one of the reasons I like him, you cant buy him, he doesn't owe anyone"favor
Well the same was said about Bloomberg -- He was self financed so he didn't owe anyone anything but the wealthy real estate and finance guys are his friends and his fellow plutocrats
so in the end Bloomberg did their bidding and nothing really changed in NYC except it got more expensive for poor and middle class to live here.
I think Bloomberg was a putz, but the plutocrat adopted a strategy of not fucking up what he was handed, one of the safest major cities in America.
Right or wrong, he's the only sincere anti-illegal immigration candidate. And I think that does cross party lines.
The immigration policies of this country for the last few decades are radically changing this country. This is the backlash.
In the latest NBC News/WSJ poll, 32% favor find and deport, right about at Trump's ceiling. No poll shows a majority agreeing with you or Trump, Eric. And with Trump now wanting to cut back on legal immigration, too, he is going to get a war from the Chamber of Commerce types.
At some point, it isn't going to just be about policy talking points, either. Trump is going to have to show actual knowledge of policy and modern political history, and he can't learn any of that quickly enough.
Link - ( New Window )
and pray to [you know who] that the not too many people are dumb enough to vote for the damn communist from Vt.
which should not be surprising, since that is what they do.
His attack on birthright citizenship ignores the critical milestone that was the 14th Amendment in treating African Americans as people and not property.
But as the field shrinks, and the questions and examinations become more specific and focused, and when "electability" becomes a more prominent factor, Trump will fade away.
Well, that's certainly shorter than having to write a rebuttal.
Quote:
on his helicopter.
His attack on birthright citizenship ignores the critical milestone that was the 14th Amendment in treating African Americans as people and not property.
I do think it needs to be looked at. This is being abused by not only those coming over the border, but there is actually birth tourism where pregnant women come here from Asia and stay to give birth so their kid is an American citizen and then they also can stay. Oh, and they also go to a hospital and pay nothing for the care they get there.
Link - ( New Window )
Sorry but Trump is exactly correct the drive for more H-1B Visa's isn't because of labor shortage it is about driving the cost of developers down.
1) in each poll that comes out, those favorability/unfavorability raings continue to inch their way upward and expand where you think his ceiling can be. I just saw a CNN/ORC poll today that put his favorability up to 60% among republicans. The recent FOX poll had 52% or republicans saying he wasn't qualified to be president. That was around 80% a couple months ago.
2) I am wholly unimpressed by the political skills of his competition, and his presence in this race makes their boring/charisma-less presence stand out even more. Jeb Bush is a total stiff, he may be more qualified than his brother but he's not half the politician. Scott Walker is bland as it gets. Carson the same. Ted Cruz is obnoxious and loud, but not necessarily skillful in the way I mean. I think Marco Rubio has some skills but he just isn't catching on with republican voters it seems. The force of Trumps personality just overshadows this field, I can't peg the one I see them rallying around.
1) in each poll that comes out, those favorability/unfavorability raings continue to inch their way upward and expand where you think his ceiling can be. I just saw a CNN/ORC poll today that put his favorability up to 60% among republicans. The recent FOX poll had 52% or republicans saying he wasn't qualified to be president. That was around 80% a couple months ago.
2) I am wholly unimpressed by the political skills of his competition, and his presence in this race makes their boring/charisma-less presence stand out even more. Jeb Bush is a total stiff, he may be more qualified than his brother but he's not half the politician. Scott Walker is bland as it gets. Carson the same. Ted Cruz is obnoxious and loud, but not necessarily skillful in the way I mean. I think Marco Rubio has some skills but he just isn't catching on with republican voters it seems. The force of Trumps personality just overshadows this field, I can't peg the one I see them rallying around.
still very early in the game. Remember Hermain Cain?
I don't think he will win the nomination but he has already separated himself from the again and Bachman comparisons
Will it grow? I don't know. Can he he be taken down? I don't know.I do know that the people of this country to a large extent are fed up with politics as usual and are looking for something.Is Donald Trump that something? I don't know
Will it grow? I don't know. Can he he be taken down? I don't know.I do know that the people of this country to a large extent are fed up with politics as usual and are looking for something.Is Donald Trump that something? I don't know
Unless it's lasts until the convention it's nothing more novel than McCarthy in '68, McGovern in '72 or Carter in '76. In fact until the election debates next year it's not too different from Perot in '92.
Two examples:
Immigration - This is the most well known since it's his primary position. After the 2012 election the Republican leaders tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform to take it off the table but they folded in the face of a revolt by the base. They know that this immigration talk dooms their chances in this election cycle but there's nothing they can do about it. At first the candidates were trying to toe the line but now that Trump has started throwing red meat all over the place this plan is falling apart.
Entitlements - This is the bigger deal since this is THE issue that matters most to the donors. They want entitlement cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, etc) and tax cuts for themselves. This is the position that has to be toed by all candidates if they want any money. The problem is that most Republicans don't actually want to cut entitlements. Normally this isn't an issue since no candidate will go against donors on this issue. Trump isn't afraid to defend the entitlements and that will be a popular position.
This dynamic makes him very different than candidates like Cain, Bachmann or whatever looney flavor of the month has come before. While people pretend that it's his bluster that's popular, it's actually his positions that are popular.
In the latest NBC News/WSJ poll, 32% favor find and deport, right about at Trump's ceiling. No poll shows a majority agreeing with you or Trump, Eric. And with Trump now wanting to cut back on legal immigration, too, he is going to get a war from the Chamber of Commerce types.
At some point, it isn't going to just be about policy talking points, either. Trump is going to have to show actual knowledge of policy and modern political history, and he can't learn any of that quickly enough. Link - ( New Window )
Timing is everything and Trump is benefiting from timing. The pundits and media who love these policy debates have beclowned and discredited themselves for a few years now and the news is filled with the stumbles and trips of government. It may be that broad policy statements and the promise of administrative ability are enough.
polls of an established party for 2 months.
I really wish someone else jumped in. I keep praying a Warren, Gilibrand, Kerry, etc get in because I'd go for them in a heartbeat.
Yes but last I saw she was 4% behind Jeb and 2% behind Rubio (head to head) - think that was 2 days ago. I don't remember which polling company, but it was a major one.
Bush is the GOP I'm rooting for selfishly as a Democrat. I think if he's the nominee, he's the easiest to beat. A Clinton Bush race favors Hillary.
Guess Gulf War II wasn't a good deal after all....
Polling Trends - ( New Window )
2 different polling companies.
He's definitely more Reagan than Michelle Bachman.
Trump Interview - ( New Window )
Just give it time for the crazy to settle, and for other candidates to drop out. When that happens, then the other candidates and the Koch money will start targeting Trump and holding his feet to the fire to be a real candidate. It will become clear that he is not only unfit, but that he has no real solutions.
Just give it time for the crazy to settle, and for other candidates to drop out. When that happens, then the other candidates and the Koch money will start targeting Trump and holding his feet to the fire to be a real candidate. It will become clear that he is not only unfit, but that he has no real solutions.
I share the same assumption that ultimately some measure of fatigue or scandal or what have you will doom Trump. But this election cycle is playing to his strengths because EVERYONE SUCKS. Hillary is a wretched candidate and the future of her scandals is unknown, but there isn't another viable candidate who even starts to bring together the various Democratic constituencies. The presumptive frontrunner for the GOP, Jeb, has zero magnetism and his very name hearkens back to one of the darker few years in our recent past. The only guy in the field I really like, Rubio, seems to hold a position on abortion that is to the right of a good bit of his party, much less the electorate as a whole. Everyone is by some measure canned, corrupt and/or pandering to the denizens of faculty lounges or talk radio. Trump sucks, but Trump's whole candidacy is centered around an idea that is being reinforced daily - that the respective Party establishments are rotten to the core.
Country Club in Miami. He would do a round with athletes, entertainers
and he came off as a real nice guy and his guests loved him. When he decided to run, I thought he wasn't serious. Then I really started to listen and read what he is saying. The Obama birther nonsense aside, I started to think this makes sense on some of what he was saying. Is he the guy to get to do what I like? I don't know, but I am not treating him as a sideshow
"But I have gained such respect for the people that like me and respect me and that like my views, it's incredible."
"Trump then calls me over: "Janice! You got to see this woman!" he says, motioning to a female dressed in a suit sitting next to the "richest man." It's never explained to me whether she is his wife or colleague. I don't know if she understands what is being said. "Isn't she beautiful? Beautiful!" he continues as she stands expressionless. "This is your business to know these things," he says to me, as an editor. "Just look at her!""
"And then beautiful Kate [Steinle] was killed "
"I'm not surprised at the ratings. I just think it wouldn't interest you. I knew him a little bit when Bruce was a great athlete. He was one of the best-looking people you'll ever see."
"I've got a net worth of more than $10 billion."
"When will you get Melania out there talking about you?
Pretty soon. She wants to do it. She is a very confident person. You've seen her on The View, and you've seen her on different shows. Larry King. You've seen her being interviewed. She's got a great style"
"ne of the reasons I tell people about my level of intelligence — like, for instance, I had an uncle, Dr. John Trump, who was at MIT, like totally brilliant, became a professor at MIT — "
" I have an income of over $400 million a year. "
"Eventually, HBO will do a movie about this election. Who should play you?
Somebody really, really handsome. That's the only thing that matters. I don't care if he can act well. He's got to be really, really good-looking. OK?"
Supporters like Headhunter seem to have no idea what damage Trump will take once the big guns start taking him on directly through media buys. Teflon Don will look like Denzel Washington at the end of Training Day.
Country Club in Miami. He would do a round with athletes, entertainers
and he came off as a real nice guy and his guests loved him. When he decided to run, I thought he wasn't serious. Then I really started to listen and read what he is saying. The Obama birther nonsense aside, I started to think this makes sense on some of what he was saying. Is he the guy to get to do what I like? I don't know, but I am not treating him as a sideshow
I have to admit, I saw him on the helicopter with the kids and one kid asked him if he was Superman, and he said 'yeah, I'm Superman'. He was great with the kids. I honestly think he's like all the people who are pissed off about what has been going on in the country and he thinks he can fix it. He doesn't need the attention and let's face it, it will be a huge pay cut for him.
But I still can't forgive him for his horrible comments about the Yankees a few years ago.
Either way, I think he has broad appeal across party lines in ways that someone like Jeb, Rubio or Walker don't.
At this point, I'd be taking him seriously if I'm a Republican or even Hillary.
one of the reporters following his campaign.Reporter asks a Conservative Republican women who is a 1 issue voter and that is abortion, nothing else matters. The reporter asked her how could she support Trump knowing he was Pro Choice? Her answer " Nobody's perfect"You keep waiting for his fall
Supporters like Headhunter seem to have no idea what damage Trump will take once the big guns start taking him on directly through media buys. Teflon Don will look like Denzel Washington at the end of Training Day.
Timing is everything and he definitely benefits from timing. I don't quite believe it myself, but he seems to be sticking around.
“These insiders to our government, you’re right Roger, Trump has scared the hell out of them, because as you said, they can’t control him,” Ventura said.
Either way, politics is a joke, and hopefully, Donald Trump is helping the average American to realize that fact.
Link - ( New Window )
The RNC is even more ruthless than Trump is. If they feel REALLY threatened by him he's never seen anything like what they'll throw at him. I'm sure there will be closed door discussions between them before anything like that happens. After all, thousands of people get appointed to jobs in each new administration. Trump doesn't have the resources or pool of people to do that staffing with "non-politicians". The bulk of those jobs will go to establishment R's. That in addition to the entrenched career bureaucracy. Making the needle point in a new direction isn't as easy as he'll make it sound. The ship pretty much runs on autopilot.
As far as what people do or don't know about Trump, eventual voters are very cavalier about actual policy positions 15 months out. Despite illusions to the contrary, that doesn't last. People who hate abortion won't support a candidate with a pro-life position, even if they think he's sorta nice and sorta smart 15 months out. Same on a whole host of other issues, including fiscal conservatism and immigration policy.
You don;t have to be a wonk to articulate a view. But you have to be articulate enough on policies to present a view: This will matter when the field gets whittled down.
And for those who don't think attack ads will work against Trump, I still believe strongly that when literally hundreds of millions are spent to define him from without, he will fall flat as a pancake. No one is doing ads against him right now, because no one wants to spend money that way with 16 other candidates in the field. That will change, guaranteed.
Of course, the other thing keeping Trump strong is that ALL of the Republican candidates have warts from the viewpoint of much of the Republican base. And those warts grow into tumors when you move past the base. The possible exception is Kasich, and I doubt he ever gets enough traction within the base. A couple of writers are beginning to say "watch out for Cruz." That would be a disaster in the general election, but might actually make sense in the primaries, at least for a while. Walker is fading fast. That leaves King Bush the Bland.
See full poll results here.
Jeb Bush is polling at 13 percent, Ted Cruz at ten percent, Mark Rubio at nine percent, and six percent each for Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker.
The survey shows Hillary Clinton is still leading with Democrats in North Carolina at 55 percent. Bernie Sanders is trailing Clinton with 19 percent.
Public Policy Polling revealed independent candidate Deez Nuts is polling at nine percent in N.C.
Public Policy Polling surveyed 957 voters from Aug. 12 to Aug. 16, including 477 Democratic primary voters and 406 Republican primary voters. The margin of error for the overall survey is +/-3.2 percent.
Link - ( New Window )
with their poll diven focus group tested stump speeches. Trump lets it fly and some of it is contradicting and down right silly, but he doesn't hold back and is telling how he truly feels. I'm sick of Washington and both parties produce the same shit.
It's a different time. The pundits and the anchor types who are the ones gung ho for policy proposals and wonkery have lost a lot of credibility. I don't think they are going to have enough influence to demand that level of depth.
The Dems have their own problems and risks. What are they going to do if they lose Hilary? They are looking at an old white man from a tiny state in the Northeast who can't or won't fundraise for big dollars or the former mayor of Baltimore. At that point, they have to draft Biden who went down in flames to both Palin and the nerd but might be the only guy who could out-Trump Trump and wouldn't be afraid to fund raise.
Every decade or so pundits forecast the demise of one party or the permanency of another, and it hasn't happened for a long time. "The country is center left!" "Conservatives have more kids!" "Immigrants vote Democrat!" After the disaster of 2008 if you told the Republicans they'd have both houses in 2015 and a fighting chance at the election next year they'd be overjoyed.
And Republicans have won 5/9 presidential elections. Social issues are certainly trending leftward, but outside of gay rights many of them were actually moving in the opposite direction until a few years ago. Making definitive predictions about our political future is a fool's errand.
So 1992 is relevant but 1988 is? You're arbitrarily drawing lines to make your point.
"Imperial Presidency" (and not without good cause)... Seriously? In what way.
If they could push forward a quality candidate, the trend would probably reverse.
My $0.02.
Unlike those altruistic Democrats like Wasserman-Shultz on the DNC.
Jesus H. "Fucking" Christ, give me a break
I am well aware of where the demographics are and where they're likely heading, where social issues are polling among younger people, etc etc. I am also well aware of the fate of prognostications.
That "zinger" about Russia and the 80's proved incredibly prescient. The media loved it, however, so I guess he did win.
You want to talk about trends? People are pissed off. White people, old people, conservatives, religious people, fly over people. Many of the ones who stayed home in 2012, but came out in 2014. They are responding to Trump. And they care less about policy than about how pissed off they are.
As stated above - Gerrymandering only goes so far. Demographics and the shrinking-white old guy base is bringing a day of reckoning - if not 2016, then certainly by 2020. Hell, some of the key Red States are turning blue as northerners migrate south and as the Hispanic demographic grows.
Trump, sexist as he is, certainly seems more capable of this than the other candidates.
Trump, sexist as he is, certainly seems more capable of this than the other candidates.
Abortion will not go away as an issue anytime soon, and if the Republican Party stops at least paying lip service to it they will face a 3rd party challenge. It's that simple.
Healthcare
Conceding the last of the social triad - women's issues - will amount to a significant transformation. Focus on taxes/budget/foreign policy.
Healthcare
Conceding the last of the social triad - women's issues - will amount to a significant transformation. Focus on taxes/budget/foreign policy.
It's too big an issue for too many people. A solid quarter or so of the electorate thinks it is THE abiding moral stain on the country. It's not like gay rights; opposition to that lingers but it is likely relatively transient.
The equal pay thing is a huge red herring. Abortion is legal, but with these videos, more and more people want late term abortions made illegal.
Again, women care about jobs, the economy and security. Same as men do.
Quote:
is winning.
Unlike those altruistic Democrats like Wasserman-Shultz on the DNC.
Jesus H. "Fucking" Christ, give me a break
You don't know me at all if you think that was my implication. That's ok, it's a big board.
I believe if I'm not mistaken, states worth 240 electoral votes have gone to dems in 6 straight cycles now. Fair to call those states firmly blue when they go one way for a quarter century straight, although there is always a chance one or two may flip. But that almost puts them at the 270 needed off the bat. Republicans have to dominate the swing states
As far as a quarter of the electorate, thats a problem thats hard to address in a two-party system....if GOP keeps that, they automatically lose an equal or greater amount....having a party hamstrung isn't good for anybody. Better competition breeds better candidates. Probably one reason why HRC keeps her apologists. She so obviously sucks, but still looks like she can win. Its pitiful.
As far as a quarter of the electorate, thats a problem thats hard to address in a two-party system....if GOP keeps that, they automatically lose an equal or greater amount....having a party hamstrung isn't good for anybody. Better competition breeds better candidates. Probably one reason why HRC keeps her apologists. She so obviously sucks, but still looks like she can win. Its pitiful.
Er, you just went on about how women will vote and you want to tell me to let them speak for themselves? And then you rant about pastey old white guys telling women what to do?
Irony Alert!!!!!
See: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many others. End runs on a women's right to choose is considered a women's issue by many women. So is gutting access to women's health care centers. So is access to Plan B contraceptives, and personhood amendments, and refusals to permit abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
Look, I am not suggesting that anyone agree with the liberal side on these issues. All I am saying is that pro-choice women, plus those who believe in limited exceptions, plus those who are concerned about women's health centers, plus women who recognize that personhood amendments severely limit contraception and eliminate in vitro fertilization consider this stuff a big deal. Telling a woman that this isn't a women's issue when she believes it is doesn't help you politically.
And the pay gap issue is real; conservative propaganda to the contrary. (Link)
Link - ( New Window )
The equal pay thing is a huge red herring. Abortion is legal, but with these videos, more and more people want late term abortions made illegal.
Again, women care about jobs, the economy and security. Same as men do.
See: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many others. End runs on a women's right to choose is considered a women's issue by many women. So is gutting access to women's health care centers. So is access to Plan B contraceptives, and personhood amendments, and refusals to permit abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
Look, I am not suggesting that anyone agree with the liberal side on these issues. All I am saying is that pro-choice women, plus those who believe in limited exceptions, plus those who are concerned about women's health centers, plus women who recognize that personhood amendments severely limit contraception and eliminate in vitro fertilization consider this stuff a big deal. Telling a woman that this isn't a women's issue when she believes it is doesn't help you politically.
And the pay gap issue is real; conservative propaganda to the contrary. (Link) Link - ( New Window )
These are not issues that a President decides- if they were, Obama would have already done it. The remedies are legislative and judicial. You can say a President appoints SC justices, but the Court remains unfortunately a political entity and it's not going to regress on these issues to any place where the American public is not, regardless of who makes the appointments.
OK - yeah - excellent strategy.
Women won both of Obama's elections - 2008: 56% Obama, 43% McCain... 2012: 55% Obama, 44% Romney.
You've almost definitely got Hillary Clinton running as the Democrat Nominee.
Yeah, keep attacking women's rights. Good luck with that.
And the pay gap issue is real; conservative propaganda to the contrary. (Link) Link - ( New Window )
And your proof is a report from the American Association of University Women?
Yet, we watched a stage of men state that they support banning abortions for incest and rape and at any point, in fact.
I am amazed that the R's can't get this right. It would just take the kind of response like JFK gave- "My personal religious beliefs tell me that abortion, regardless of the circumstances, is the taking of an innocent life, but as President of all the people, my public policy would be to accept exceptions for rape and incest as the overwhelming majority of citizens want" End of story
Here we are 3 years later & their leading candidate is talking about 'Mexican rapists', an end to birthright ciizenship for illegal immigrants, & building a wall on the southern boader that, oh yeah, Mexico is going to pay for.
And then he insinuates Megyn Kelly had her period during the first GOP debate.
He is also controlling the discussion, having candidates either agree or repudiate what he's saying.
I don't know how long he'll be around for, but I think the idea that he's a fad is yesterday's news.
The Democrats have problems-HRC continues to get bogged down in his this email fiasco of her own making. And who the hell knows where it goes?
But the GOP needs to get The Donald under control.
Actually a majority of Americans are pro choice but Republicans never let silly things like facts get in the way of their mythical Right Center Nation
Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years - ( New Window )
Quote:
my public policy would be to accept exceptions for rape and incest as the overwhelming majority of citizens want"
Actually a majority of Americans are pro choice but Republicans never let silly things like facts get in the way of their mythical Right Center Nation
Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years - ( New Window )
Actually, according to your link, a plurality of Americans are pro-choice. If you want to know what a majority of Americans believe, you can got to this link:
"A new survey of Americans finds strong support for abortion restrictions – including among those who identify as “strongly pro-choice.” Eighty-four percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, with 58 percent of strongly pro-choice Americans supporting such limits.
The Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll also found that almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) favor a ban on abortions after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, a majority of Americans (53 percent) believe life begins at conception, and more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) think abortion is morally wrong."
Link - ( New Window )
Here we are 3 years later & their leading candidate is talking about 'Mexican rapists', an end to birthright ciizenship for illegal immigrants, & building a wall on the southern boader that, oh yeah, Mexico is going to pay for.
And then he insinuates Megyn Kelly had her period during the first GOP debate.
He is also controlling the discussion, having candidates either agree or repudiate what he's saying.
I don't know how long he'll be around for, but I think the idea that he's a fad is yesterday's news.
The Democrats have problems-HRC continues to get bogged down in his this email fiasco of her own making. And who the hell knows where it goes?
But the GOP needs to get The Donald under control.
Yet Trump is only 6 points behind Hillary in the recent polls.
The Hispanics are never going to go in a majority to the Rs. not now. What the Rs need to do is to get all of their base voters out, the ones that stayed home in 2012. And they are not going to do that pandering to Hispanics. For every one Hispanic vote they may get, they lose 7 base votes. They need stick to their principles and concentrate on their resources on the base.
MOM, his 'I went to Wharton. That's a pretty smart school' line always cracks me up. As does talking about himself in the third person. He's great entertainment. I can't help but laugh/smile when he talks.
Link - ( New Window )
Donald: I'm impervious to insults, Mommy.
(From Kill Donald, Volume II--many more to come.)
But Jeb isn't half the politician his brother is. When The Donald claims that the Jeb audience is asleep, he's right. Jeb keeps talking about how he's running a happy campaign. Huh? He's completely joyless & an absolute stiff.
And he's put his foot in the mouth a lot recently, whether it's phasing out Medicare, that we spend too much money on women's health, & his absurd allegation that everything that happened in Iraq is Obama & Clinton's fault.
Again, I doubt The Donald wins the nomination. In that case, Jeb is probably the favorite. And what a weak candidate he'll be. All the legitimate arguments the GOP will have against HRC-political dynasty, yesterday's news-goes out the window if wannabee 45 is the GOP standard bearer.
at what point do we say, wow this guy might actually be the nominee? His lead is growing and we are only 4 1/2 months until Iowa.
seat room moved to a 2000 seat room to a football stadium expecting 40,000. You may think it will be all redneck low information voters, but you would be wrong
hit a chord.
Here's Steve Ballmer at a microsoft presentation, not a pro wrestling event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
Lol.....that is great, what an embarresment. Was that just prior to the disaster known as "windows 8"
Is he doing that for the reason you lay put? Or more because he knows he will be pulling out of the race within a few weeks? Has he officially filed yet? I know he announced, but I think you get something like 75 days (with all the extensions and grace periods) until you have to officially file the paperwork that makes it official. I have not heard if he has done that yet, until then I am going to assume he is playing at this
hit a chord.
I think Trump has done a great service by pulling down the curtain on the politically correct class and showing that you can get support by voicing your views, even if they don't fit the narrow scope of what is accepted. However, I am not sure if Trump has the discipline to stay in the race and then actually be President for 4 years and deal with all of it. So I'm not ready to endorse him.
Silver gives him a 2% shot.
And thank God for that.
Trumps 6 Stages of Doom - ( New Window )
The only chance the Republicans have nationally is if they change recent youth voter trends. They need for either A. less youth voters to show up or B. win a bigger % of the youth vote. Unless that happens, all of this is just a dog and pony show for Hillary's inevitable inauguration.
March and April are the months that will most whittle down the field. We will see then. I also don't rule out the possibility of Trump surviving, or even leading, until the convention. A brokered convention is a possibility. He would lose that, big time, but the Republicans would be a mess.
Then again, with Hillary getting damaged in the polls, we will know pretty soon whether Biden is jumping in.
It's like the French Revolution, without the guillotines.
Eventually, this farcically long campaign period will start to focus on the meat of the politicians' plans and Trump will be exposed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/17/20-times-donald-trump-has-changed-his-mind-since-june/ - ( New Window )
And, as has been said numerous times, no one is shooting hard at Trump yet in a field of 17.
Ultimately, at the Convention, the pragmatists will win out and either Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich will be nominated but the party will already have sufficiently alienated the Hispanic and middle-ground voters to lose.
It's not worth it for the smarter candidates to wrestle in the mud with him and to match his level of crazy outrage because it's not a winning strategy. So it often appears as if Trump is the only one "saying it like it is."
Eventually that will go away when candidates drop out and when the Koch money and other PAC money start going to ads a month or two before elections. Then Trump's won't be the only hard-talking, hard-hitting campaigner.
As of now, Trump still doesn't have enough total support to win the nomination. Again, sprinting the first lap of a marathon.
I got involved with the TP in 2010 believing there was a new awakening. Over the next 3 years we never got to represent more than 15% of the Republican vote, so I chucked it all. So it's hard for me to go for the idea that everything has REALLY changed now. It's fascinating to watch. I'd be surprised at pleased if the Establishment doesn't come out on top again. It's just so hard for me to root for Trump, I've disliked him for 25-30 years. My underlying belief is that anyone who would run as a major Party candidate is already too corrupt to vote for.
It's not worth it for the smarter candidates to wrestle in the mud with him and to match his level of crazy outrage because it's not a winning strategy. So it often appears as if Trump is the only one "saying it like it is."
Eventually that will go away when candidates drop out and when the Koch money and other PAC money start going to ads a month or two before elections. Then Trump's won't be the only hard-talking, hard-hitting campaigner.
As of now, Trump still doesn't have enough total support to win the nomination. Again, sprinting the first lap of a marathon.
We'll see. Not what the political pundits of all ilk are saying. They are surprised at amount of middle and upper middle class that are jumping on the band wagon. Democrats included.
He is the closest to an independent running in a long time and may well end up running that way.
He's going to draw 40,000 in Alabama.
They all are not going to knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
Long, long way to go. Anyone who thinks this isn't great entertainment hasn't been paying attention.
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
And THAT's a big part of why the party will fight hammer and tong to make sure he isn't nominated.
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
There's a lot of frustration with status quo politics that he's tapped into. His ceiling is probably in the 30s but if runs as a third party candidate, that could be enough to influence the entire election and send it to Congress.
I don't think anyone ever came up with a detailed white paper on where the chickens were going to come from, who was paying for the pot, who was going to cook the chickens, what if you didn't have a garage, etc etc etc along with the opposition paper on why it should be game hens instead of chickens, why roasting is a more environmentally sound method of cooking the chicken, who was buying the gas for the car.
You had another good point about enthusiasm. In very low turnout primaries, the person with the most motivated supporters generally does very well.
He doesn't try and speak like a politician, because he isn't and that is clearly resonating with people. Similarly, Bernie comes off as a good person (though he is more of a "politician") in that way as well. I find some of his positions distasteful, though in actuality, they are not as socialist as one would expect, but I am tired of politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear. I am trying to focus on the person more, and the politics less (or as much as I can) this time around.
I am really starting to see this and believe it. It is an effective method in the business world, and he appears to excel at this greatly. Great point.
Nope. Electoral college landslide for the Dems.
Like others have said, I don't like him, but I'm happy he's having this monet.
Quote:
thing.
I can't imagine a toxic personality like him gets ANYTHING done. He'll alienate congress immediately and you'll have 4 years of even more do-nothing than you've come to expect from the government.
Good thought because the non-"toxic" personalities we have had have accomplished so much.
As bad as it's been, I kinda think it can always get worse. He can talk until he's blue in the face about building a wall and deporting people, but the only way that gets done is by having a working relationship with congress, and needing them to want to buy in to what he's selling. The last 8 years have seen a lot of do-nothing precisely because of one party sniping at the other or trying to play defense against things getting done. He can run on a platform of being the guy that tells it like it is, but pissing off the room because he has no filter is not the way to get things done the way the system is set up.
The Presidency ages you by about 20 years. With his ego, maybe he's not willing to accept that
That's what I was thinking and it would be great
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
He'll call them stupid and make fun of them until they concede.
I understand that the knock on him is that he doesn't have policies or a platform, but he certainly will soon. I don't fault him for that yet. It's too early and he was a businessman, which is a huge step up over a career politician to me.
You are pointing out the bluster and ego, and I know that is a problem for a lot of people. I concede that and it is a big factor for me as well. What I am wondering, is if you step back and look at where he appears to stand on many of the issues, are his politics acceptable on their own to a large audience ? I am guessing the answer is "yes."
Almost all of us won't be happy with whomever wins the next presidential election. My sense is that politically, he is probably pretty acceptable to a large majority of voters being realistic about finding middle ground. Thoughts ?
yeah, but in 200 years, school kids will be learning about President Trump. No one is going to remember some real estate guy
Is he a patriot? I don't know--let's say yes. But being ego-driven (inarguable?) is a fault--a bad one.
His bluster on illegal immigration is just that. He is being pragmatic about the wall, unreasonable about the amendment and shipping out illegal immigrants, though of course we need a better way to deal with the criminal element.
Aside from that though, what parts of his limited platform he has shared do you disagree with ?
When the chips fall, he seems to be a pretty moderate person and likely to garner a lot of votes from both sides.
Everything about him is repulsive. He runs as the anti-Establishment candidate but everything he accuses the Establishment of doing - whoring themselves to donors - he paid them to do! He supports traditional marriage but he treated marriage as a car lease. He touts his business acumen but the only truly remarkable piece of legacy is his ability to preserve his personal assets through corporate bankruptcy. Evidencing tact and decency in interpersonal relations is not political correctness. And as a billionaire and a recipient of untold government largesse he is a hypocritical populist. So fuck Donald Trump.
as far as bankruptcy goes, it is completely normal for deals to be put into a corporate structure to ring-fence assets within the deal...so that people cannot come after your other non-deal assets later. this is a basic way of using legal structures to keep people with the biggest pockets from having to commit to more than they wish. if he did something unethical/illegal/fraudulent we should all like to know about it.
he does seem to trade in the wives for hotter, younger ones quite a bit. Not sure that makes him a bad president, or person.
again, what about his actual left/right/middle politics ?
as far as bankruptcy goes, it is completely normal for deals to be put into a corporate structure to ring-fence assets within the deal...so that people cannot come after your other non-deal assets later. this is a basic way of using legal structures to keep people with the biggest pockets from having to commit to more than they wish. if he did something unethical/illegal/fraudulent we should all like to know about it.
he does seem to trade in the wives for hotter, younger ones quite a bit. Not sure that makes him a bad president, or person.
again, what about his actual left/right/middle politics ?
But he's not running on a nuanced platform, he is running as a personality with some mostly vague references to policy. So the fact that as a person he's a steaming pile of shit is relevant to the inquiry.
He has warts. I acknowledge his warts, but I like his vision for America more than I'm bothered by his faults.
It is crony capitalism from a guy who wants to be the nominee of a party that at least pretends it supports the free market. And it is not a crime to be successful, but where that success owes in large part to befriending influential politicians you deserve to be skewered for it.
His personality is horrible but even that aside, he doesn't have any policies. Take back manufacturing jobs from China and Mexico? What does that even mean? And if he really believes that, then why are his line of suits made in Mexico and Vietnam?
Here's what police say Scott Leader told them to justify the assault: "Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported."
Here's what Donald Trump said when told about the alleged assault (according to the Boston Globe) at a press conference in New Hampshire: "I haven't heard about that. It would be a shame, but I haven't heard about that." Then the crowd buzzed, and Trump added: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it."
Nice, huh?
That government largess he benefits from comes from laws that he and other large donors have bought off politicians to pass for their purposes.
It sounded to me like he was excusing their behavior because of their passion.
his business career has been spotty - a lot of his companies have been outright failures and have filed for bankruptcy. it's one thing to throw money around to get what you want for land development deals, but a completely different relationship building skill set is needed to broker international deals on both trade and peace issues and manage international relations.
the world is a dangerous place - you can't f**k around with Russia or China. the middle east is constantly unstable. if he practices the bulldozer approach to international situations he's been preaching, the fall out could be disastrous.
net worth does not equal capabilities as a president of a superpower who has the ability to start a nuclear war.
It's hostile takeover time, boys!
there are some level headed and experienced GOP candidates not named trump, Huckabee and Cruz.
Steve - Is that you?
& he's really getting under Bush's skin. Jeb got pretty testy today. I love it.
& he's really getting under Bush's skin. Jeb got pretty testy today. I love it.
I don't know the man. I certainly hope there is no collusion with the Clinton campaign. I can't see him running as just a spoiler. He'd have to think he could win to run as an indie. That would be a very high and expensive mountain to climb, without a cadre of seasoned supporters. So I don't see it as likely, but all bets are off with this guy.
This does not mean that we will have the first open convention in 64 years—it would not be a “brokered” convention, by the way, since there are no brokers anymore, but an open and free-wheeling one. There are still solid reasons to believe that there will be coalescence around an establishment figure, even if this one has to veer even more to the radical side than McCain or Romney did. Or there might be, like 1964, a clear nominee from the insurgent side, possibly Trump but also possibly Cruz. But there are also reasons to believe that if either of those scenarios prevailed, it would not be a happy convention. Somewhere near half the delegates will feel jilted, and Cleveland will rock. But there are plenty of historical parallels for that kind of convention, from the Cow Palace in 1964 to Chicago in 1968. History may prove a guide, but it’s no longer clear where it’s pointing.
Link - ( New Window )
This wall. I swear, it's starting to sound like the Berlin Wall. Fuck the wall.
And I can understand the tough guy talk on ISIS... but the "take their oil" - that's new. Usually couched beneath layers of misleading political verbage, Trump just flat comes out and says it. TAKE THEIR OIL.
Yaay.
He doesn't scare me nearly as much as the fact that he has this much support. A movement of Nationalistic, Isolationist, Racist Hawks.
Where have I seen this before?
Ironically, that started off as a purely Libeertarian movement before flying off the rails.
This nation has a growing movement of poorly educated, ignorant crazy that is extremely unnerving.
You do understand why they're called the 1%?
The 27% he's getting in the polls isn't coming from the 1%.
Nice try though.
I'm sure Mexico is going to open the checkbook for a multibillion dollar project that only benefits the US! Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists!
Iraq controls most of its oil fields, not ISIS - ISIS generates most of its income from ransom money and Syrian oil fields. you bomb the oil fields, you destroy a good chunk of Iraq's economy. not to mention that what rights would the US have to expropriate another sovereign country's resources?
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a "sh*t Trump says" blog.
Quote:
are you talking about? That is the typical knee jerk reaction. I'll bet you a good percentage of his support comes from people who can buy and sell you and have more advanced degrees than your whole circle of friends combined
Really.
You do understand why they're called the 1%?
The 27% he's getting in the polls isn't coming from the 1%.
Nice try though.
1% doesn't go very far. So by the same logic, they make up even less of Hillary's 47%
Really, Steve?
Quote:
Most pundits believe that Trump has a ceiling of support around his current levels of roughly 25 percent. But if other insurgents like Cruz and Carson have their own support nearing a combined 25 percent, why can’t Trump potentially garner a solid share of their backing if they falter? Moreover, if Trump does stay at 25 percent well into the primary season, he may well secure a strong plurality of support, with a bunch of other candidates getting 5 to 15 percent, letting him stockpile a number of delegates. And he might be able to win a slew of in states where the minimum threshold for delegates is 20 percent... It is not difficult for me to imagine that Trump, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Rubio, Kasich and maybe a couple more can stay in the race well into April or later, with no single candidate emerging. Perhaps the Koch brothers and their allied wealthy funders will try to unite behind a single candidate, and force the others out of the race—becoming a surrogate for the RNC and the rest of the party hierarchy. But if they go to Bush, Kasich and Walker, say, and push them to drop out and back their choice of Rubio, why would the others, with just as many delegates and some strong financial backers, listen to them?
This does not mean that we will have the first open convention in 64 years—it would not be a “brokered” convention, by the way, since there are no brokers anymore, but an open and free-wheeling one. There are still solid reasons to believe that there will be coalescence around an establishment figure, even if this one has to veer even more to the radical side than McCain or Romney did. Or there might be, like 1964, a clear nominee from the insurgent side, possibly Trump but also possibly Cruz. But there are also reasons to believe that if either of those scenarios prevailed, it would not be a happy convention. Somewhere near half the delegates will feel jilted, and Cleveland will rock. But there are plenty of historical parallels for that kind of convention, from the Cow Palace in 1964 to Chicago in 1968. History may prove a guide, but it’s no longer clear where it’s pointing.
Link - ( New Window )
What Ornstein said that should have been applied to both parties, not just Republicans:
"The desire for an insurgent non-establishment figure is deeper and broader than in the past"
What Ornstein DIDN'T say and should have:
Yes, he's correct that the Republicans, particularly House Republicans, have moved to the right over the last few decades. What he should have added and failed to do so was to say that the Democrats, particularly the House Democrats have similarly moved farther left during that same time period. We would probably disagree about the comparability of each party's drift, but there is no doubt about the movement. What chance would Joe Lieberman have even running for dog catcher in today's Democratic Party?
Also, 2016 really has little resemblance to the '64 election in that LBJ ran uncontested with no server problems as an incumbent. The Kennedy's may have been biting their tongues, but they did not interfere.
Quote:
You wrote that, what he said is that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. How he does that he will have to explain. ISIS go in there, take em out and take their oil. Why not take their biggest source of income away from them and destroy the oil fields they control?
I'm sure Mexico is going to open the checkbook for a multibillion dollar project that only benefits the US! Especially after Trump called their citizens murderers and rapists!
Iraq controls most of its oil fields, not ISIS - ISIS generates most of its income from ransom money and Syrian oil fields. you bomb the oil fields, you destroy a good chunk of Iraq's economy. not to mention that what rights would the US have to expropriate another sovereign country's resources?
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a "sh*t Trump says" blog.
The ISIS comment is a derivative of something the Donald has said all along and a criticism of foreign policy under Bush and Obama- that we get nothing for our efforts and that we make the world safe for Chinese and European businesses. So,if we were to go in and wipe out ISIS, we should take some oil.
HH has done a pretty good job trying to tell you guys that there are reasonable voters who are tired of hearing the chattering of arguments and counter-arguments and moaning about how difficult everything is while nothing happens and no one does anything.
You don't have to agree, and maybe your are right, but let's not act like this is a raving maniac talking and anyone who thinks "hey, that's right" or "I never thought of it that way" is an ignorant fool.
Yes, Dems have moved further left. That would help get Trump nominated, which is his current topic.
I honestly believe that if trump somehow wins the GOP nomination and the general election, he will start world war 3. chances are better than 50% that he would do or say something to piss off a country with nukes like Russia China or NK. and because he's a hard headed egomaniac, he would not back down.
None. Lieberman ran as an independent his last campaign because he lost in the D primary to Ned Lamont. Lieberman won.
there is a difference between being strong/assertive and being macho. trump is talking like he is a WWF character.
I have no idea or not if trump is pragmatic. from his words and the character he portrayed on the apprentice, he sounds like he's a confrontational bully who doesn't stop until he gets his way and surrounds himself with yes men. and I don't know what he was like when he was younger, but new Donald is sounding like a crazy old guy who lost his marbles.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Lol
On the left we have Hilary, who is 50/50 to be in the race or in jail, Sanders who doesn't have a prayer, and possibly Biden who carries a lot of baggage.
On the right you have a loud mouth and a whole diverse field behind him.
When did the left become the party of old white people?
Quote:
Those good citizens he was referring to are the illegals that commit rape and murder. If you deny it, you live in a fantasy world
most "illegals" are people who escaped poverty and violence in mexico and are taking the menial jobs cleaning dirty toilets and doing manual labor on farms 12 hours a day for less than minimum wage that a lot of ordinary americans shun. are there the odd ones who "rape and murder"? I'm sure. but I have not seen any statistics that demonstrate illegal immigrants commit more rape and murder than US citizens.
Meh, most of the smaller farms that I'm familiar with pay between $8 and $10 to illegals (under the table of course).
There is also a thriving black market that specializes in getting social security numbers for illegal immigrants. Had a guy at work "Carlos" (I never found out his real name) that provided all his I-9 documentation to get hired, had legitimate picture ID/drivers license, and was at the plant for almost ten years before the IRS started taking 75% of his paycheck. It seems Carlos (and his social security number) was 4 different illegals who didn't file their taxes, and as the only one that actually did file my friend at work had to foot the bill for all the back taxes. Since he couldn't live on 25% that the IRS left for them, he had to come clean to the company hoping that they would still keep him under his real name (he incidentally became a U.S. citizen legally in the years between when he was hired and the IRS came after him). Unfortunately of course they had to fire him.
Your overall point is correct that the majority are folks escaping poverty. But let's not pretend that the vast majority are slave labor here. There are plenty of opportunities to earn a good living illegal or not (just not many as a citizen has).
Bush 16 percent
Field-Single Digits
Leads Tea Party
Moderates
Evangelists
Tell me when the bubble bursts? After Labor Day?
Thanksgiving?
.
Rudy Giuliani - 29%
Fred Thompson - 14%
Mitt Romney - 11%
John McCain - 7%
Newt Gingrich - 5%
Mike Huckabee - 3%
Ron Paul - 3%
2011:
Rick Perry - 29%
Mitt Romney - 17%
Ron Paul - 13%
Michelle Bachmann - 10%
Hermain Cain - 4%
Newt Gingrich - 4%
Rich Santorum - 3%
Jon Huntsman - 1%
Early polling data is a shitty indicator of presidential nominations.
Which is kinda the point.
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
And you talk about denial?
FFS
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
And you talk about denial?
FFS
I think the thing most people aren't yet considering is that money really hasn't come into play thus far. The media's fascination with Trump (and ratings) has meant that he's getting probably 3X the press coverage as the rest of the Republican field combined. They let him call in interviews, which they certainly haven't done for the other contenders.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Let's see what happened when money comes into play.
Monday is one of my days off.
But what would a recruiter know about actually working?
Quote:
name leading the polls this early.
The votes that matter, the money that matters, the delegates that matter, none of them are reflected in those polls yet. Never have been this early, probably never will be.
This has been explained to you many times in this thread. You still don't get it.
And you talk about denial?
FFS
I think the thing most people aren't yet considering is that money really hasn't come into play thus far. The media's fascination with Trump (and ratings) has meant that he's getting probably 3X the press coverage as the rest of the Republican field combined. They let him call in interviews, which they certainly haven't done for the other contenders.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Let's see what happened when money comes into play.
IMO the low information generally stay that way. Do they come out to vote. Trump if he gets the nomination may get a large majority of those and they may even show up.
How many young voters voted for Obama because they like him and personally and liked his positions superficially.
IMO Trump may get the same effect. He may not be as personally likable but I think people at this point like his FU attitude An anti establishment candidate who captures their attention. Kids 18-25may come lout for him in droves. A huge middle finger to the establishment.
Hillary is the very definition of an establishment politician. Obama wasn't IMO. Not some long time party hack who mobilized interest. And for those who insist Trump isn't qualified they are just whining. Our current POTUS was infinitely less qualified.
The biggest question I have is if the republicans establishment decides they can make a back door deal w the dems to sabotage him or withhold support.
Reuters poll now has Trump at 32%, his highest yet. His favorability continues to climb in each poll too, and with that so does his ceiling. There is also some "follow the leader" bias at play, the longer Trump holds his lead the more some who didn't view him as legitimate will come around. We are already seeing some of that
I don't like Trump. I do find him wildly entertaining. I never thought he had a shot at this nomination 2 months ago, but at this point it's tough to say it's not possible. Especially against this field
And, of course, on the Democratic side, it was difficult to imagine that the Hillary's incompetence on the e-mails--doing this originally, and then responding to it--would blow up so badly.
We are going to have a very weak pair of candidates, I fear. Not a good thing given the need for leadership in the world.
How many young voters voted for Obama because they like him and personally and liked his positions superficially. Kids 18-25may come lout for him in droves.
But remember, you had roughly 15 million of that cohort on college campuses which were hot houses of support for Obama. I doubt that will be true for Trump, if for no reason other than the fear the faculty will reduce their grades it they're seen showing Trump any support.
The biggest question I have is if the republicans establishment decides they can make a back door deal w the dems to sabotage him or withhold support.
I think relations are so toxic between the parties that this is highly unlikely. There would likely be a genuine fear that if such a deal was even broached it would be leaked to the press with a resulting firestorm
2. They are often the most uninformed (and the least likely) voters who take part in them, as most potential voters are still acquiring information.
I'm 100% confident Trump's support will fall off and he will not be the nominee. If you take a look at polling patterns among the most recent elections, where there was sizable societal and economic upheaval, similar patterns to previous elections come to the fore. I doubt that this time is any different.
Anti-establishment candidates simply don't weather the storm.
2. They are often the most uninformed (and the least likely) voters who take part in them, as most potential voters are still acquiring information.
I'm 100% confident Trump's support will fall off and he will not be the nominee. If you take a look at polling patterns among the most recent elections, where there was sizable societal and economic upheaval, similar patterns to previous elections come to the fore. I doubt that this time is any different.
Anti-establishment candidates simply don't weather the storm.
Sample size? WTH does that have to do with anything?
-Anonymous
My kingdom (or republic) for a candidate who doesn't suck.
My kingdom (or republic) for a candidate who doesn't suck.
We have yet to see sizable policy platforms from the main candidates. At this point, with so many candidates, the optimal strategy is to work behind the scenes gathering support, not staking out a policy platform that is built on a tempestuous electorate, where you pander much more to the fringe than in the general election.
I think it's nobodies because that allows them to build. The brightest star burns too hot.
I think it goes Rubio, Kasich, and Bush, with Rubio the favorite in the race at a later date.
I think it goes Rubio, Kasich, and Bush, with Rubio the favorite in the race at a later date.
I'd guess Kasich, Rubio (with Rubio as veep and presumptive next Pres nominee), Bush
But I do think Trump represents the DC outsider that people crave. More of an anybody but another professional politician. How else do you explain his gaffs and no adverse affect?
And why is he running? What's his rationale? That he wants to continue the family business? To redeem the Bush name? At least HRC can say she'd be the first woman president. Jeb will be Bush the Third. Yawn.
Guess you never saw his press conferences after the hurricanes. He was quite comfortable in English and Spanish.
He said he wasn't going to run an attack campaign. It is easy to make fun of someone that won't respond to verbal attacks, like Trump is doing.
It is funny that the only one Trump likes to make snide remarks about is Bush.
I think Trump has avoided attacks because nobody expected him to do this well this long. So nobody had a plan to combat Trumps verbosity.
He gives awful interviews and press conferences. I mean 2 on a scale of 1-10, tops.
Given the media age we're in there's substance in what you say. But it's also worth remembering history. Remember this Newsweek cover? Saddam Hussein wished he had.
Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society. Populism has been misused to describe Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade, the John Birch Society, and David Duke’s white nationalism, among others.
Link - ( New Window )
He gives awful interviews and press conferences. I mean 2 on a scale of 1-10, tops.
George, a leopard can't change its spots. You think he forgot how to lead. He is not a dynamic personality. But he knows what he is doing. Yeah today's politicians need glitz. You think Obama gets elected without his dynamic personality? I doubt it. Yet he cannot get his agenda accomplished. Except for Chief Justice Roberts wanting to change the perception of the Supreme Court as biased right, ACA gets tossed. (Oddly I am glad it has survived the court tests.)
Trump is bombastic; Bush is quiet like his father. He is not dynamic and never will be.
In every public appearance I have seen so far, he has been the latter, not the former.
Yeah. Because having experience here leads to good legislation? How many legislators wrote up legislation. Their staff does it. Shit. Half of the. Never read legislation. And last I checked he President isnt in the house or the senate so his job is t really to write up legislation is it?
He's had a very parallel career to Obams's up to the point that he was nominated, for better of worse. He's young, good looking, personable, positive, Hispanic and comes from a crucial swing state.
And why is he running? What's his rationale? That he wants to continue the family business? To redeem the Bush name? At least HRC can say she'd be the first woman president. Jeb will be Bush the Third. Yawn.
HRC running to be "the first female Pres" is AWFUL reasoning to run (which I don't think is her reason)
Quote:
Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege—of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.
Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society. Populism has been misused to describe Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade, the John Birch Society, and David Duke’s white nationalism, among others.
Link - ( New Window )
Typical TNR bullshit insinuating David Duke had any substantial support from the Republican base and equating him to Trump, Palin and the Kochs.
In every public appearance I have seen so far, he has been the latter, not the former.
You do have a point. He has not been good at all. Thing is, neither has Hillary. She's giving him a run for his money. Of course Trump is just as bumbling, but his bombastic retorts overcome his ineptness. AT least he is entertaining.
Mother knows best. - ( New Window )
]
I guess they couldn't resist a potshot. But their main point about Trump's pseudo-populism holds up anyway.
The establishment is in a panic. They have been a closed club for a long time, Reagan was the only outlier. Their candidates are boring and uninspiring, no wonder they think Jeb is the best candidate.
I'm not in the Trump camp, but I am delighted to see the Establishment get it's comeuppance.
(hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”).
And as long as it's fair game to link politically biased websites I'll provide this from the National Review which might provide a different basis for the applause after his PC comment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422819/racist-microaggression-list
Hope you didn't order turkey breast on whole wheat today for lunch.
My God, I'm actually defending Donald Trump.
That article tells me nothing new or old. The discussion of Trump as a pseudo-populist is fair, imo, despite the source.
Quote:
(hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”).
And as long as it's fair game to link politically biased websites I'll provide this from the National Review which might provide a different basis for the applause after his PC comment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422819/racist-microaggression-list
Hope you didn't order turkey breast on whole wheat today for lunch.
My God, I'm actually defending Donald Trump.
I didn't know at the time when I became libertarian that that was the reason, but I should have realized. Thankfully, I do have the redeeming quality of preferring dark meat
That article tells me nothing new or old. The discussion of Trump as a pseudo-populist is fair, imo, despite the source.
That was a writer for Slate, not some campus knucklehead, that said liking white meat is racist.
Pro offending people?
Tellya what, I was at a county fair Saturday in Pa.
I've gone many years past. Sales in hate-filled, intolerant merchandise must be high, because there was lots of it that I never saw before. LOTS of Confederate Flag merchandise, 2nd Amendment, anti-Liberal stuff. Interestingly, nothing with an anti-Conservative flavor. Apparently, county-fair attendees aren't very Liberal.
Signs with awesome Murcan' slogans like:
"SPEAK ENGLISH"
"Liberalism: Steal From the Rich, Give to the LAZY"
"I Fight POVERTY. I WORK!"
"AK-47 beats 911 EVERY TIME"
Great stuff. Made me proud to be an American. Really.
Pro offending people?
Tellya what, I was at a county fair Saturday in Pa.
I've gone many years past. Sales in hate-filled, intolerant merchandise must be high, because there was lots of it that I never saw before. LOTS of Confederate Flag merchandise, 2nd Amendment, anti-Liberal stuff. Interestingly, nothing with an anti-Conservative flavor. Apparently, county-fair attendees aren't very Liberal.
Signs with awesome Murcan' slogans like:
"SPEAK ENGLISH"
"Liberalism: Steal From the Rich, Give to the LAZY"
"I Fight POVERTY. I WORK!"
"AK-47 beats 911 EVERY TIME"
Great stuff. Made me proud to be an American. Really.
If terms like brown bagging it and white meat offend you, you have a problem, not the person saying it.
Sadly this is likely the case.
Quote:
be where I am on this. I'm in tune with MoM. Last year before the reelection was on the farthest reaches of my things to think about, and you named Donald Trump, I would be my obnoxious, ripping and tearing self going after you.These mainstream candidates from both paries and the elected officials in DC brought this on themselves. Once you spring a leak in a dam, it only gets bigger. Frustration, anger, being felt left out, comes back to haunt you
Sadly this is likely the case.
Why "sadly"? The political system has become the antithesis of what the Founders envisioned. It could use a major kick in the ass.
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Democrats are stupid, huh. I expect better from you. Not everyone on BBI's right, but from you Im surprised by this. And that's not what she said. MB said with respect to HRC's [email defense]:
Brzezinski is also talking out of her ass here. Her points are that HRC broke rules/policy by (1) having a home-based server and (2) basing a server out of a bathroom in Colorado are clear breaches of rules/policy. Except the server was not based out of a Colorado bathroom but rather a secure NJ data center -- that's just a bullshit story. And there was no rule about not using private email addresses/servers -- actually the State rules about data preservation have special provisions making clear that WHEN someone uses private email, the department still needsto preserve that stuff under the records act. You wouldnt have a rule like that if the rule was "no private servers". So Mika was just wrong on her two points. Dead wrong. Sorry to miller this thread.
Link - ( New Window )
Trump has tapped into that and even though he offers little in way of any real ideas people understand that most of the alternative candidates that may offer their "ideas" are mostly just paying lip service anyways and therefor they don't see such a glaring difference at this point with regards to substance. They do however count on Trump being different to where he will actually try to do something more than worry about raising money and playing politics if he gets into office.
I guess a lot of people in this country are to the point they would rather have a man who they believe wants to roll up he sleeves and work at doing something about the problems even if he doesn't offer any real plans for doing so opposed to those who talk a good game but have little follow through or genuine commitment once in office.
Quote:
Someone on the HRC thread mentioned a Mika statement that a lot of current Hillary supporters are, to be kind, low information voters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for "The Donald" as well. These are also voters who could be influenced by TV campaign ads.
Democrats are stupid, huh. I expect better from you. Not everyone on BBI's right, but from you Im surprised by this. And that's not what she said. MB said with respect to HRC's [email defense]:
( New Window )
Hey, I didn't say it, Mika did. If anything I softened the statement by using "low information" rather than "not smart". And funny, you (and nobody else for that matter)didn't object to my classification of Trump supporters in the same way.
And as far as the servers go, we'll see. There's going to be an FBI report. Everybody has their talking points. They'll boil it down.
I just dont agree with it. Obama and Bush accomplished a lot. Both had signature achievements (Iran deal, ACA, NCLB, Bush tax cuts) while facing enormous challenges. Bush was stuck with the coming of age of international terrorism. Obama was stuck with the worst economy in generations and a middle east that quickly lit on fire (ongoing wars plus Arab Spring, now ISIS).
I just dont agree with it. Obama and Bush accomplished a lot. Both had signature achievements (Iran deal, ACA, NCLB, Bush tax cuts) while facing enormous challenges. Bush was stuck with the coming of age of international terrorism. Obama was stuck with the worst economy in generations and a middle east that quickly lit on fire (ongoing wars plus Arab Spring, now ISIS).
Jut to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter. That was only my take on why he is garnering so much support and how many people that are supporting him are likely viewing it.
How about classifying Trump supporters as low information?
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
"Only" stupid people? That I never said.
Quote:
to labeling Republican voters as racists.
How about classifying Trump supporters as low information?
...but they are.
It's not my fault if you see anything as a political "tit-for-tat" in any post, but that's your shtick.
Quote:
(and in any event, repeating someone's bullshit uncritically is no defense). You changed a quote that essentially said that her defense on one issue depends on people not being smart to a statement that essentially only stupid people would vote for Hillary. I didnt address the Trump comment because you said "I wouldnt be surprised" -- you didnt carve out a position.
I agree there will be a report. As I said on the other thread, I get that there is stuff here she may have done wrong. Not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but she may have actually broken some policy or rule. But there's too much bullshit flying around to make a decision based on what we know so far. A lot of the charges against her have been false, and present a moving target.
"Only" stupid people? That I never said.
No, you didnt. But you tacitly approved a comment that most of her voters were low information voters. And that wasnt even the comment you were purporting to approve, so the words were your own.
But this is probably wrong. The people at Pew are low-information female pollsters.
Link - ( New Window )
You cant take the college dropouts from us Dune. Those are ours!
More seriously, the only material # in there looks to be the post grad degree groups. Dullards. I suspect that educational achievement is actually not doing much work here and that the education sub-splits are just noise except maybe for that last group.
“Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today's markets driven in part by China's slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy. Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests. Given China’s massive cyberattacks against America, its militarization of the South China Sea, continued state interference with its economy, and persistent persecution of Christians and human rights activists, President Obama needs to cancel the state visit. There's serious work to be done rather than pomp and circumstance. We need to see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations."
China make stock bad. Make China stay home. Make me Scott Prezydunt.
Yet he won 3 elections?
How the hell could he do that with 63% voting against him?
Yet he won 3 elections?
How the hell could he do that with 63% voting against him?
Just because 67% may view someone unfavorably, doesn't mean they were motivated enough to vote one way or the other.
The third win was part of the Republican rout. And since then, he has been falling from really lousy in-state employment results, stupid moves like cutting a huge chunk from the budget of one of the nation's very best state universities, and moving hard to the right on social issues in a mainly moderate state.
He's burnt toast, which is fine with me. I hate the guy.
The NYT, which has never been kind to the Clintons, made fools out of themselves last month when they ran that front page article saying she was the target of a criminal investigation. They pretty walked back that entire story. And most recently, that the server was stored in a bathroom in Denver. The company came out & said that was completely ridiculous.
The media has never learned their lesson. They fell for the same crap in the '90s with the Clintons: there'd be some outrageous allegation, they'd report it, it (usually) turned out to be complete bunk, & they just moved on to the next 'scandal' & did the same thing, never admitting that they got completely played.
Why not let it all play out before throwing HRC in prison for the next 10 years? This story continues to evolve & nobody knows where it's going to lead.
Scarborough is insufferable. He talks about his old man or brother every 5 minutes. Barnicle is there just to be there.
The only one I like is Willie Geist. I actually met him about 4 years ago & he was a very nice dude. Very down to earth & personable.
The NYT, which has never been kind to the Clintons, made fools out of themselves last month when they ran that front page article saying she was the target of a criminal investigation. They pretty walked back that entire story. And most recently, that the server was stored in a bathroom in Denver. The company came out & said that was completely ridiculous.
The media has never learned their lesson. They fell for the same crap in the '90s with the Clintons: there'd be some outrageous allegation, they'd report it, it (usually) turned out to be complete bunk, & they just moved on to the next 'scandal' & did the same thing, never admitting that they got completely played.
Why not let it all play out before throwing HRC in prison for the next 10 years? This story continues to evolve & nobody knows where it's going to lead.
So you're saying this is already in the rearview at ThinkProgress?
This has always interested me. Quick google search shows that about 25% of masters degrees are MBA's and slightly less are education degrees. I'd imagine that the latter group, with its union affilitations, would be heavily (D). Similarly, academics whose funding depends on government sources would lean that way. Is there any data on the correlation between advanced degree fields and political inclination?
I'll patiently await your retraction.
Now that politics has become a game where you live and die with your "team".
Hell, new polls come out every morning.
I could care less for Walker.
Right now the republican candidates are looking like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
The democrat candidates look like escapees from the old white folks home. They really need to march out some more 70ish white folks to make it interesting. Not.
I'll patiently await your retraction.
I believe I mentioned that we should "consider the source" or something to that extent, as I usually do with partisan sources. Bathroom or not, is there any indication that the company that maintained and backed up the server was authorized to touch classified material?
How does that work?
No argument here.
Why are you still allowed to live?
Making conversation?
She is such a flawed front runner but I don't know who can beat her. I love Bernie but I don't think that's realistic. Martin o'malley would make a good president on a tv show, he totally looks like a tv president. Lincoln chaffe (sp?) is a total punchline. I actually think Donald Trump could make Lincoln Chaffe cry in a debate
Making conversation?
Drinking game.
Fine with me. FBI is looking into it. Hillary signed an affidavit (ordered by a judge her husband appointed to the District Court so no vast right wing conspiracy here) saying everything has been turned over. Let's see what turns up.
Query. If no criminality (we're waiting for the actual determination) arises but it's discovered that her server was less secure that State's and was hacked by Russia, China, North Korea and Israel do you think that reflects on her fitness for higher office?
That gaffe was positively Biden-esque, and proves that when he tries to stoop to Trump's level he fails miserably.
Quote:
at the Border he said it is the Asians not the Mexicans who are taking advantage of birthright laws
That gaffe was positively Biden-esque, and proves that when he tries to stoop to Trump's level he fails miserably.
Well...Asians are a smaller voting group, so will it really hurt him? And really, those damn Asian people...they're the worst.
Photo op at a kimchee joint?
No. I dislike the fact that we have another Bush anointed the presumptive nominee, but beyond his last name he comes across as cold and aloof and I haven't seen anything so far to change that.
Link - ( New Window )
A good thing IMHO.
And a core strategy of Bush was to not alienate hispanic voters. Part of the appeal of Jeb is that people think he can draw hispanic votes. But all this anchor baby, build a wall, birthright citizenship stuff will not play well with a decent segment of the hispanic electorate.
Another interesting angle on hispanic voters is the Miami Cuban contingent. They vote their own way, much more conservative (like Orthodox Jews, who are a political breakaway from how reform and conservatives vote). I suspect the new Cuba relations will push more of them to the GOP.
Quote:
than to blame Asians at the Mexican border?
Well...Asians are a smaller voting group, so will it really hurt him? And really, those damn Asian people...they're the worst.
He'll promise to pass the "staple act" so that all those Asians in US grad schools getting masters/PHDs in STEM subjects get green cards upon graduation. Problem solved.
He puts his foot in his mouth every other week. Keep trolling him Donald. He gives you plenty of material.
Trumps appeal is Kardashianesque - ( New Window )
Trump 35, Kasich 11, Bush 7, Walker 7, Carson 6, Christie 4, Fiorina 10, Cruz 4, Paul 3, Rubio 4, Huckabee 0, Perry 2, Jindal 0, Graham 1, Santorum 1.
Trump as much as the next 4. Interesting that Kasich has moved to second, though. The Republican establishment plus some of the PACs could start seeing him as the "white night" in this mess.
Not the case in SC, though:
Trump 30, Carson 15, Bush 9, Walker 4, Huckabee 3, Graham 4, Rubio 6, Cruz 5, Fiorina 6, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Paul 3, Perry 0, Jindal 0
Yeah, Sanders is ahead of Hillary in NH. Not sure that means so much. Biden might mean more if he gets in, might not. Or the Dems could limp on with a damaged candidate.
Hey, whatever floats your boat, just say it. No need to verify anything.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I'm sick of professional politicians that are going to shut down the Government because of Planned Parenthood for political points. I'm sick of th gridlock, the disdain that politicians have for the voter and are only concerned with getting reelected. Trump is Trump, but to me he is the antidote to the crap that has been going on since Clinton's Impeachment.
I'm sick of professional politicians that are going to shut down the Government because of Planned Parenthood for political points. I'm sick of th gridlock, the disdain that politicians have for the voter and are only concerned with getting reelected. Trump is Trump, but to me he is the antidote to the crap that has been going on since Clinton's Impeachment.
Except what has Trump ever said or done to make you believe he wouldn't be just as inflexible as President as Congress is now?
Trump's campaign slogan is "Make American Great Again." But the subtext of that is, (Whether You Like It Or Not).
tested, blah, blah blah political hacks. I'm just stating the reasons why I believe Trump is where he is today
For the same reason people slow down when they see a car crash by the side of the road.
Trump is a fascinating political experiment that we've arguably never seen played out. How far can blind charisma carry a Presidential candidate when he demonstrates, with nearly every breath, that he has no idea how to do the job?
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
Everybody? And the question I would ask is how far ratings have risen with the exception of the debate (no doubt there). At this point I'm normally watching the Yankee games in the evening and if I do watch an opinion show I turn the channel when he is on. If he calls into Morning Joe I switch to CNBC or Bloomberg. They DO, however, allow him to do phone interviews unlike virtually any other candidate. I'm just not sure what they think is happening, increased ratings, is indeed occurring.
Quote:
if we are all morons who support Trump, why does everyone from every political point of view and drop everything and watch him giving interviews? If you say you don't,fine, but.............
For the same reason people slow down when they see a car crash by the side of the road.
Trump is a fascinating political experiment that we've arguably never seen played out. How far can blind charisma carry a Presidential candidate when he demonstrates, with nearly every breath, that he has no idea how to do the job?
Why do people insist lobbing softballs to be hit out of the park?
Quote:
Biden promises he's a 1 term president. Otherwise she would either run herself or remain a power broker in the Senate. She's 66, and a 2 term Biden presidency would leave her running at age 74. No way that's acceptable if she really wants the job.
I don't get the Warren love. In her way, she's as much theater as the Donald.
If you define the Democratic base as the liberal wing of the party she's a deity, and could probably lock down every bundler who hasn't already committed to Clinton.
He has shown no indication that he could be a good diplomat nor national leader. Further, his "solutions" seem to be hollow at best, and he's mostly offered no real solutions anyway. Nor any reason why we should think he could implement them.
However, if we think we should vote for him because he's dynamic when he says "You're fired" or because when he was put on the spot in a debate, he lashed out and then continued to lash out even when he had time to think about it and consult about how it was bad, and has a platform consisting of " people are too PC", then go crazy and vote for him?
I don’t get why there is so much consternation over Trump. He’s the embodiment of the 21st century Republican. He’s the heir to the guy who got elected on bravado, with the rallying cry “Don’t mess with Texas” and the solution to all problems resting in either (1) tax cuts and (2) statements of toughness. He’s the heir to the Rick Santelli rant which tabbed people losing their homes as “losers” (a real Trump term) that called for a “Chicago Tea Party”, thus providing spark for the Tea Party movement. He’s the heir to a Republican opposition strategy of rank opposition – everything Obama is for is bad, and even if it’s something like Obamacare which was effectively the policy of the GOP’s last two presidential candidates but is now CLEARLY unconstitutional to the whole right (“If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”).
Let’s not forget how Trump became popular on the right – with the Trumped up birther charges that too many rank & filers believed and too many elected officials turned a blind eye towards for too long. What is keeping him popular now is (1) the fact that he’s ‘giving it to the liberals’, (2) his robust anti-illegal immigration/immigrant rhetoric, and (3) non-politician background (because Reagan said that government is the problem). That’s the modern right in my eyes – anti-liberal (more so than conservative), anti-illegal immigrant (and in some corners, just anti-immigrant), and anti-government. Reactionary.
So what’s the problem with Trump? He’s thin skinned. So what. He’s angry about all the shit that has conservatives angry. And that anger seems to be the fulcrum of the post-Bush right wing. It’s certainly not some broad vision for the 21st century (or if it is, I haven’t heard it).
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
Rick Santelli's tea party to Romney to Trump. The 21st century GOP.
someone might support him. You can vote for one of your chickens for all I care, not trying to convert anybody
Passion is a morally neutral emotion. Having it doesn't, in itself, grant you any sort of high ground.
Do you think the passion showed by people advocating liberal PC culture gives their views more validity than the substance of their arguments?
If I was a donor, I'd want my $ back. This dude is absolutely awful.
Link - ( New Window )
Both are also morally neutral. The worst leaders ever elected to public service have had their diehard defenders. Religion contains some of the worst ideas every imagined, and people gladly organize their lives (and deaths) around those principles.
If I was a donor, I'd want my $ back. This dude is absolutely awful.
Link - ( New Window )
You have a sick obsession with this man. We get it. You dont like him. Neither does 90% of republican voters. Why continue to harp on this 25x a day?
Yes you do. you jsut dont realize you do. You mention every day how you pray he is the GOP candidate or anytime he says something you quote the link.
We get it.
I guess he turned out fine. Which, again, is my point. If history's best and worst leaders both had "passionate" defenders in common, then it's probably a bad idea to use the level of passion to gauge the value of a candidate.
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with his sons.
Grow up already You cry and complain when people question or take a shot at HRC and defend how she is "attacked more than any other candidate" even though she is the ONLY candidate on the Dem side, so of course she is going to get all the attention.
But yet, you sit here every single day ripping Bush as if it matters. We get it. You dont like him. You have made that point perfectly clear. We dont need to hear it constantly.
Quote:
I don't like Jeb. There are about 5 people who post anti HRC threads/links every other day. Stop pretending like I'm the only one who gets some glee out of the misfortune of a candidate I don't like. And if it bothers you so much, ignore it. It's not that hard to ignore someone's posts.
Grow up already You cry and complain when people question or take a shot at HRC and defend how she is "attacked more than any other candidate" even though she is the ONLY candidate on the Dem side, so of course she is going to get all the attention.
But yet, you sit here every single day ripping Bush as if it matters. We get it. You dont like him. You have made that point perfectly clear. We dont need to hear it constantly.
Dep, I know you hate Hillary so of course you have no problem when others attack her constantly. But when someone rips another candidate for putting his foot in his mouth every other day, you bemoan '...we don't need to hear it constantly'.
Be a little consistent pal & then you might have a point.
Yes I dont like HRC, but I am not sitting here defending Jeb, Trump, Cruz or any other Republican candidate when people continue to put them down. You are the one who cant see the difference.
But now I know its ok to rip HRC any chance I can now, because you wont respond, right?
Listening to Trump now in Iowa... I am befuddled that anyone can vote for him in the primary, then at the same time Ill be kicking myself when I have to vote for him in the general election.
I've not once defended her decision to have a private email account. But I have defended her when people say she's only where she is because of her husband (totally wrong & bordering on sexist), that she should be sent to prison (a tad over the top at this juncture), etc.
He appeals to the masses. Most not the educated kind when it comes to politics.
And Ramos was out of line in the questioning of Donald. He went in their to sabotage the interview not learn anything.
He talks plainly, like when he was discussing how illegal aliens are behind many of the gangs in the US right now. I just wish he would stop some of the stupid stuff.
I just wish he would stop some of the stupid stuff.
That might be like saying you wish birds didn't have feathers :)
Unlike Bernie Sanders, he didn't fold and quiver in the corner when controversy came at him in a public event. His detractor looks like a hot headed instigator who came looking for a fight and to create a story and Trump just brushed him aside and even had him brought back to make an ever bigger ass of himself when he was given a chance to speak after the initial outburts.
I don't get this whole Trump thing, but I've given up on it. The entire field on both sides sucks, so maybe it really shouldn't be that surprising.
Quote:
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
You and I are not going to agree on what the tea party is. To me the tea party has nothing to do with policy positions and winning on issues. Rather, the sine qua non of the tea party is anger. It is a seething anger -- and an accompanying state of being aggrieved -- over a perceived loss of America. And in particular the America where men were in charge, where business was in charge, where whites were in charge, where Republicans were in charge (of the White House) and where America was in charge. Not that the tea party is inherently racist -- I dont think that it is. But it is a movement whose philosophy is that "we" want "our" country back (roughly) -- and this is exclusionary; the tea partiers are losing to someone else who is winning, and that shit has to stop.
This lashing out, the seeting anger , has very much won over the GOP. And it's why Donald Trump, who someone at TNR aptly described as the voice of "aggrieve privilege", is leading in the GOP's polls.
Trump's explanation at the debate of why he gives $$ was one of the most powerful criticisms of the system I've ever seen. And it was off the cuff. Not sure he meant it as a criticism per se, but he plainly wasnt saying it was a good thing.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Trump then blunted any criticism that would've come from that move by then allowing Ramos back in the room, and actually talking to him.
I hate Trump, but Ramos should have been kicked out. He was a complete asshole. There was no hidden meaning behind it, because he invited him back and answered questions from him. But Ramos was WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of line. He was embarrassing.
- fuck those guys who killed Kate and Jameel (always only use the first name)
- nabisco can go screw themselves, boycott Oreos
- he cherishes woman. Always use the word cherish too.
- he's gonna win the Latino vote because he is going to bring jobs back from china (and hey did you see that poll in Nevada?)
- always throw in a shoutout to the wounded warriors which is a staple of his post McCain spat campaign
- John Kerry looks like a douche getting in bicycle races at 73 and breaking his leg. Trump will never do that (I actually find this one funny)
- just crush Jeb bush, the attacks vary but usually it's about him saying 'act of love', or the 'skin in the game quote' or his gaffe on womens health issues. Now he's working in that bush is copying him on anchor baby
- mention his school and his wealth and generally just boast
I'm sure you can add to this, but he has the same checklist every single speech. Hardly as unscripted as given credit for. He's really insanely repetitive
If I was a donor, I'd want my $ back. This dude is absolutely awful.
Link - ( New Window )
He would crush anyone that's not clinton. And it would be a photo finish if she's the nominee. Which she won't be. After she's done in by the emails the republicans are in the drivers seat. I can read your fear.
- fuck those guys who killed Kate and Jameel (always only use the first name)
- nabisco can go screw themselves, boycott Oreos
- he cherishes woman. Always use the word cherish too.
- he's gonna win the Latino vote because he is going to bring jobs back from china (and hey did you see that poll in Nevada?)
- always throw in a shoutout to the wounded warriors which is a staple of his post McCain spat campaign
- John Kerry looks like a douche getting in bicycle races at 73 and breaking his leg. Trump will never do that (I actually find this one funny)
- just crush Jeb bush, the attacks vary but usually it's about him saying 'act of love', or the 'skin in the game quote' or his gaffe on womens health issues. Now he's working in that bush is copying him on anchor baby
- mention his school and his wealth and generally just boast
I'm sure you can add to this, but he has the same checklist every single speech. Hardly as unscripted as given credit for. He's really insanely repetitive
'Jeb Bush is a low energy person' 'FOX got 24 million viewers for the debate. They'd be lucky to get 2 million if not for me.'
Quote:
In comment 12435355 Deej said:
Quote:
The right is now the tea party (or at least a BIG BIG part of the right is the tea party). And Trump makes sense for tea party people.
As I've said before, I left the TP because we didn't have the strength in numbers to accomplish anything. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that that has changed. I think you're way off in your inference that the TP now controls the Republican Party. If they did, Paul and Cruz would be at the top, not Trump
You and I are not going to agree on what the tea party is. To me the tea party has nothing to do with policy positions and winning on issues. Rather, the sine qua non of the tea party is anger. It is a seething anger -- and an accompanying state of being aggrieved -- over a perceived loss of America. And in particular the America where men were in charge, where business was in charge, where whites were in charge, where Republicans were in charge (of the White House) and where America was in charge. Not that the tea party is inherently racist -- I dont think that it is. But it is a movement whose philosophy is that "we" want "our" country back (roughly) -- and this is exclusionary; the tea partiers are losing to someone else who is winning, and that shit has to stop.
This lashing out, the seeting anger , has very much won over the GOP. And it's why Donald Trump, who someone at TNR aptly described as the voice of "aggrieve privilege", is leading in the GOP's polls.
You're free to any view you choose. I've been in the TP and know scores of other members. I'm comfortable in my assessment of who we are. How many TP members have you had conversations with? I'm disappointed in, and resigned to, the state of the nation. The only people I've been angry at are establishment Republicans who tried to co-opt us for their own purposes. When I was in the TP my job was to head the committee that scored votes of every Senator and Congressman. There were about 50 in the House and about 10 in the Senate who were acceptable to us. If that's your idea of taking over the Republican party, I disagree. Actually, the one who sounds angry here is you.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
People like you to help rally his troops?
And this is from someone who thinks Trump's immigration policies are insane.
You're free to any view you choose. I've been in the TP and know scores of other members. I'm comfortable in my assessment of who we are. How many TP members have you had conversations with? I'm disappointed in, and resigned to, the state of the nation. The only people I've been angry at are establishment Republicans who tried to co-opt us for their own purposes. When I was in the TP my job was to head the committee that scored votes of every Senator and Congressman. There were about 50 in the House and about 10 in the Senate who were acceptable to us. If that's your idea of taking over the Republican party, I disagree. Actually, the one who sounds angry here is you.
Great post. I also know some TP people. They started out when Bush was President rejecting his big spending habits especially the TARP bailouts. The GOP has been a sham for a long time. That is what the anger is about.
Two things I have found:
1.) Jeb is not the candidate I thought he would be. Maybe Christie is right, his time has passed him by.
2.) Dems blind allegiance to HRC is confusing. She's as boring and bumbling as Jeb with a ton more baggage. She's making Joe Biden (whom I genuinely like despite his gaffes) a viable candidate.
I just don't know what to make of this mess.
Two things I have found:
1.) Jeb is not the candidate I thought he would be. Maybe Christie is right, his time has passed him by.
2.) Dems blind allegiance to HRC is confusing. She's as boring and bumbling as Jeb with a ton more baggage. She's making Joe Biden (whom I genuinely like despite his gaffes) a viable candidate.
I just don't know what to make of this mess.
I'm surprised Rubio hasn't made more of a run. I'd still say anyone who is low still has a run in them including Christie, the field will narrow which will change things.
2) Trump isn't Tea Party, he's a pseudo-populist who is campaigning on the ashes of what is left of the Tea Party. He will still crash and burn as his tactical approach needs to be replaced by real policy positions. As was noted above, he has a small set of catch phrases that make up his current routine, and ultimately that won't be enough. He will be very damaging to mainstream Republicans, and they will ultimately cut him off at the knees. His fight with FOX will not end well for him. I have no idea who will replace him, though.
3) The Tea Party failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the lack of an economic foundation for their theories. Was the TARP program big spending, given that it has paid itself pack with interest, or would letting the banks blow up have been worse? Would not paying the Federal debt have been a viable strategy or a global disaster? If the former, they never made their case.
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
"Why do you say that?" Trump replied. "Some of the great legal scholars agree that's not true.
Except it is true, lacking repeal of a part of the 14th Amendment.
I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with his sons.
Why that's very sporting of you. Name someone else in the last 50 years with a record on foreign policy as good as his. But you don't mind him.
Let's clear up something to start off. Hillary's not stupid. That's not the issue. HOWEVER, when you consider elective office, not an attorney's job at the Rose Law Firm, I think a very strong case can be made that she is such a shitty campaigner that she never would have been elected to anything but for her husband. Do you think she even would have been the Dem candidate for Senate in 2000 but for her husband. Andrew Cuomo would have been a lock for that candidacy.
Clinton also already has well-over 300 endorsements, though Biden - even without running - has a dozen. Considering Bernie Sanders has zero (unless you count Jesse "The Body" Ventura) and Martin O'Malley has 1, Biden can enter and comfortably assume the #2 position without much effort (save for places like New Hampshire and Oregon, where Bernie will capture the ultra liberal, ultra white vote). I just don't think he wants to run to make things interesting for the constituency, there has to be a clear path to the nomination and this late in the game it seems like Clinton has to completely implode to get anyone else on the ticket next November.
If that does happen, the DNC will not want to run Sanders (so as to guarantee a loss in the general), but timing is going to be a major component to this. Its almost too late already.
On Trump/Ramos - I do not like Trump, but Ramos' approach last night will do nothing but help Donald. We can strip back the outburst and how it was delivered and look at content alone, but the soundbite era of politics will see a guy violating decorum at an event to yell angrily at Trump and insert himself into a story. Maybe Trump has been avoiding him, but Ramos just ceded his position and will undoubtedly do Donald a favor with polling this coming week. I agree, he'll fade when we're out of the soundbites and into policy - but last night was not a good showing for detractors.
Trump - Fired up his base by standing up to Ramos. Added to his support in the primaries but hurt himself if he makes the general.
In short, short term win and long term loss for Trump. Ramos won both short term and long term.
Clinton implodes if:
* Any sort of indictment is handed down, or
* FBI discovers that her personal serve had security inferior to that of State's and that it was hacked by Russia, China, North Korea and/or Israel.
Our political system is already a farce. Trump is the result of that.
He's the Eeyore of this campaign.
Clinton implodes if:
* Any sort of indictment is handed down, or
* FBI discovers that her personal serve had security inferior to that of State's and that it was hacked by Russia, China, North Korea and/or Israel.
Agreed - although I think the Dems have a few things that play to their advantage in the presidential elections (demographics/electoral college breakdown), they cannot run someone like Bernie Sanders and expect to win. That will be a drubbing and this is likely their long-play to ensure they are (mostly) safe and have someone who can at least compete on a national level in a general.
To put on my tin-foil hat: I think there were a few backroom deals when Clinton stepped down in '08 and I'm assuming a clear path in '16 was part of that. That she has the Obama ground game and was running unopposed (more-or-less - they let in a few gadflies and fringers to not let it be just a coronation) makes that seem even more likely she had at least a few things promised to her. To this point, Biden only really got marched out when things escalated significantly and cracks started to appear. I do think she'll be ok, but he's there so the plan to let Clinton run uncontested doesn't backfire in their face.
Also, good points on Trump/Ramos. I was looking only at the context of the primary/Trump, but Ramos likely did more to win long-term than anything else.
I don't like it any more than you. It is what it is. Money talks.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Quote:
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
so was he being a reporter or an advocate?
Quote:
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Quote:
In comment 12436143 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Telling lies and avoiding hard interviews. Sounds very Hillary like.
When Ramos was let back in, Trump said "good to have you back", and Ramos was able to ask numerous follow-up questions and there was a lot of back and forth between he and Trump. You may not like the answers he gave, which is ok, but he gave Ramos opportunity to ask questions and follow-up.
Would Hilary do something like that? How would she do?
Watch for yourself - ( New Window )
When Ramos was let back in, Trump said "good to have you back", and Ramos was able to ask numerous follow-up questions and there was a lot of back and forth between he and Trump. You may not like the answers he gave, which is ok, but he gave Ramos opportunity to ask questions and follow-up.
Would Hilary do something like that? How would she do? Watch for yourself - ( New Window )
see this is my problem. the media gives the "trump kicks out latino reporter" thats the headline to bring you in. People will take that and thats it. Not look into everything else. IM a latino and even i saw that Ramos was being disrespectful. Having Trump ignore him is your answer for Ramos but Ramos wants to make himself look like a big shot advocate when he is really a journalist. I mean cut the shit dude. You dont like him and you are trying to look like a victim by acting like an ass
Quote:
In comment 12436171 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
In comment 12436143 GMAN4LIFE said:
Quote:
i dont like trump, i think he is an idiot and a moron, but i side with Trump on this one. First of all, Ramos interrupted another person from asking a question. Secondly, he said to wait his turn. Next, he kicked him out but then allowed him back and spoke to him for 5 minutes. Next he said Univision because he works for Univision.
jesus christ, the media madness is crazy.
Dunno if you saw George's quote above:
4) As far as Ramos was concerned, he tried like heck to get an interview with Trump, who ducked him continually, so he tried to get a voice at the press conference. Trump, as is his wont, lied about what happened. a) Ramos didn't yell, as Trump claimed. b) Trump knew damned well who Ramos was, despite claiming not to; c) Trump had him kicked out, despite claiming that a "guard for the event," did it. d) Yeah, he let him back in and had a "discussion" with him, but denied Ramos a mike, a typical Trump tactic for keeping the advantage. As far as throwing out 11 million illegals, even in places like Alabama they know how problematic that is. They tried it, and quickly ran out of farm workers. And then when Ramos stated that many illegals cam by plane--i.e., overstayed a temporary visa--Trump denied that. And when Ramos brought up citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, Trump lied again.
Telling lies and avoiding hard interviews. Sounds very Hillary like.
Focus, Al. Were talking about douchebag Trump now.
*Trump is still a fucking crazy person who shouldn't be president
On the immigration issue Ramos has been an advocate long before his daughter began to work for Hillary. And he won.
Not only has "Network" proven to be prescient with respect to television and television news, it's now become prescient with respect to our politics as well.
Quote:
so there's probably more to it than "I'm just a reporter".
On the immigration issue Ramos has been an advocate long before his daughter began to work for Hillary. And he won.
Not only has "Network" proven to be prescient with respect to television and television news, it's now become prescient with respect to our politics as well.
Yes but he is a journalist first. And when you are in there, journalists are there. Not advocates. Sorry but its making idiot trump relevant
And, Ramos had tried like heck to get a one-on-one with the single candidate of most concern to his constituency, and Trump has ducked him. So, he brought up his issues at a press conference. Why should he not?
Oh, and btw, yes, Trump let him back in and answered his questions--without Ramos having a mike, of course. But if you read any description as to why that happened, it was far from in a vacuum. Several reporters from other stations talked to Trump and his staff and convinced him to do it.
Now if only they would/could do the same for the reporters from the Des Moines Register
And, Ramos had tried like heck to get a one-on-one with the single candidate of most concern to his constituency, and Trump has ducked him. So, he brought up his issues at a press conference. Why should he not?
Oh, and btw, yes, Trump let him back in and answered his questions--without Ramos having a mike, of course. But if you read any description as to why that happened, it was far from in a vacuum. Several reporters from other stations talked to Trump and his staff and convinced him to do it.
You can have an agenda, meaning you want answers to specific questions. But the line is if you are personally motivated by your own views to ask those questions or if you only want them for journalistic content. There is too much of the former and not enough of the latter in media today.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
Again, they both got what they wanted but it will hurt Trump if he reaches the general.
Quote:
to create a soundbite. First he interrupted another reporter rather than waiting his turn, and then he wouldn't stop. Trump rightly said I'm answering this persons question now, but Ramos just wanted the headline that he was getting kicked out. Then to Trumps credit, he brought Ramos back in and did answer a number of questions (three I think). Even then Ramos kept interrupting Trump's answers.
I honestly don't see how Trump could have handled it any differently.
Again, they both got what they wanted but it will hurt Trump if he reaches the general.
Who is it going to hurt him with? His supporters love this stuff.
Long term (meaning past the primaries) Ramos won this by a mile
And then he could have told Ramos: "OK now it is your turn to ask one question. If you have more than that, we will have to set up a separate interview when it fits my schedule."
The problem with that, of course, is that he has been ducking Ramos since he made his first smarmy Mexican Immigrant comment. But he would certainly have been within his rights to limit his response to a single question, and he could have kept control of the situation by saying that Ramos would be next.
Trump just can't help being a bully. An experienced politician would have certainly handled it differently.
He needed to go back at Megyn Kelly and restart the war with FOX? Really? I have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he thinks he gets out of this.
Quote:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said Tuesday afternoon.
He added, "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."
Trump almost instantly responded -- not with an apology but with a fresh shot at Kelly. And during a news conference Tuesday evening he dismissed Kelly.
Thoughts as to what his motivation for this behavior might be? What does he think he is getting out of this? Link - ( New Window )
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
or
3 wrongs don't make a right.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Quote:
Indeed, they are growing, up 7 percentage points of the population since 2006. Lots of people lean one way or the other, but contempt for both sides has helped rock-solid affiliation decline.
And, of course, although the second graph seems to give Democrats a big edge, the turnout problem keeps coming back to bite them, except in Presidential years. Also, the evidence would suggest that at the state/local level, more voters go Republican than at the Federal level. I certainly do. I have backed roughly 3 local Dems in 15 years.
Doesnt that top chart show that the increase in self-reported independents in the last decade has come almost exclusively from the ranks of the GOP? Blue line is effectively flat. It's also why I wouldnt pay a lot of attention to arguments like the Republicans are winning independents, since a big chunk if the I group is just disaffected R's (many of whom are at least as far right as the GOP).
As for the state issue, I'm definitely more willing to consider crossing the aisle in local elections. E.g. I voted for Lhota in the last NYC mayoral race. It's a lot harder for me to give a vote to a national level GOPer since that is likely a vote for the national GOP agenda. But I think a bigger issue at the state level is that the big elections tend not to be during presidential years. We have two electorates in this country -- prez election year (dem demograpgic advantage) and off year (GOP advantage in lower turnout elections).
Looks like a move of disaffected Democrats to Independent affiliation post-2008 as well.
The other reason for Republicans doing better at the state and local level is the fact that relatively few of these jurisdictions can run a deficit on any sort of sustained basis. Yes, they can play games with public employee benefits (and both parties certainly have) but you generally have to pay for what you're proposing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/enough-is-enough.html?_r=0
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Trump 41 Clinton +4
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 42, Bush 40 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Rubio 43 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac
Biden 48, Trump 40 Biden +8
General Election: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 45, Bush 39 Biden +6
General Election: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 44, Rubio 41 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 44, Trump 41 Sanders +3
General Election: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 39, Sanders 43 Sanders +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 41, Sanders 40 Rubio +1
ummm no.. the only reason Republicans are doing better at state and local levels is that have Gobs and Gobs more money - also they smartly have concentrated on state and local level while democrats political apparatus is DC centric .
in 2005 howard dean as head of DNC started 50 state strategy which was to send money and support to every state and challenge republicans everywhere.. and it worked!! with Democrats taking back congress in 2006 .
But when Obama won 2008 and by proxy Rahm took over the DNC the first thing he did was dismantle 50 state strategy saying it was a waste of money.
Meanwhile Republicans actually adopted some of the ideas of Demcrats 50 state strategy (especially the social media parts) and low and behold they are not dominating at local and state level.
stupid democrats and their DC media consultants suck!
If he is elected, he will be 74 when he starts....
Next
Yes, the Republican strategy helps, but I could give you about a dozen other reasons. I will give you four that come quickly to mind.
1) The Democratic turnout problem in off-year elections, when Republicans make massive gains.
2) The shape of districts, with Democratic voters over-represented in urban districts and under-representated in the larger number of suburban and rural districts.
3) The increased Gerrymandering after the last census and the 2010 Republican rout.
4) Perhaps most importantly, anti-tax sentiment at the state and local level which puts the Democrats, who are usually aligned with the civil service unions, behind the eight ball. Massive pension problems nationwide are just going to make this worse, as judge after judge makes it difficult or impossible for governments--and the taxpayers they represent--to cut back on overpromising for pensions done over decades that are coming home to roost now. Need a new bridge? A new school? Sorry, the pensions come first.
The latter is compounded, of course, by publicity over the unconscionable level of pensions for a relatively few retirees, especially cops, firemen and elected officials. In Yonkers, the gap between the average police and fire pension and that of other government workers is $97,237 to $35,605. And the police and firemen can legally double dip. Think that pisses off a few voters?
link - ( New Window )
With that said, I don't think the democrats have a strong political athlete this cycle. As Chuck Todd mentioned, the country typically doesn't go backwards in generations when electing a president which is what we'd do coming off of Obama. I wish the left had a younger more inspiring candidate.
Right now, Trump and Carson together are getting 35.7% of "votes." What does that say about the attractiveness of mainstream candidates?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
Women.
In 2008 and 2012, Obama LOST the overall Male vote. Women delivered the White House to him. That's more important than Black, Hispanic, Asian.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Unless Hillary self-destructs, it's gonna be a fucking rout. If Obama could kick Romney's ass the way he did, imagine what a white woman can do. And I don't give a shit about how she's vilified by the media and by 'Clinton Rules' - it isn't even going to come close to the crap Obama got.
This e-mail thing simply doesn't have the teeth to take her down, barring any new revelations. Neither does Benghazi. If the Community Organizing, America-Hating, Gun Stealing, Secret Muslim with a fake Birth Certificate could overcome it, I'm pretty sure Hillary will be just fine.
And again - I'm not a Hillary supporter. Just calling it how I see it.
Quote:
So we’ve developed a tool, embedded below, that allows you to simulate the outcome of the 2016 elections, both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College
Link - ( New Window )
That's a GREAT link. What I found most interesting is that I plugged in a number of scenarios where Jeb Bush won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college vs. Hillary. Others, with a slightly higher white % for Bush but lower white turnout reversed the results in the electoral college. I think these results would hold true for Kasich and Rubio, at a minimum among Republican candidates, as well.
As far as Trump-Clinton was concerned I bumped BOTH the % of Hispanic votes for Clinton and the % turnout and got a Clinton electoral vote landslide. Kept the white vote for Trump at 60% but increased the % turnout. Didn't matter. Armageddon in the Electoral College
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
Quote:
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
1. Sanders 28%
2. O'Malley 12%
3. Clinton 7%
Wouldn't the media be all over this and saying what a disaster she is and how she's not electable?
So why is Bush presumed to be the front runner still?
1. Sanders 28%
2. O'Malley 12%
3. Clinton 7%
Wouldn't the media be all over this and saying what a disaster she is and how she's not electable?
So why is Bush presumed to be the front runner still?
$$$$$$$$$$$
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Quote:
In comment 12438361 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
That tool misses the most important demographic for this election.
Women.
It bases it on 2012 patterns. So unless you assume that the % of women turning out and/or voting Dem because Hillary is running is significant it really doesn't matter. And with the current e-mail issues I'm much less sure there would be a spike in the woman's Hillary vote than I was a year ago.
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
I know. That's the "Most Sexist" thing Buford ever heard, but it's going to be a BIG FREAKIN DEAL.
I guess you missed this from earlier this month:
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12438405 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Hillary's running may.. just MAY have an impact on women's votes.
With the baggage she's currently carrying I see all the diehards she would have gotten under any circumstances but not a whole new groundswell. That is unless Trump is the opponent.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Is her 'baggage' worse than what Obama was saddled with in 08'? In 2012?
Obama had worse in 2008? Surely you jest. The only way Obama would have had the equivalent baggage is if he had written Rev. Wright's sermons himself. He wasn't getting media coverage because he was a curiosity good for ratings, he got it because he was the media's Messiah! 2012 wasn't as stratospheric (see ACA rollout) but they sure nailed Romney on the 47% comment as well as his take (accurate as it turned out though the media refuses to acknowledge it) on Putin and Russia.
Trust me - they aren't done with her yet by a long shot. I'm guessing at least 2 more scandals by the time next November comes, and as I've already said - nothing compared to the insanity that Obama faced BOTH times.
As said above, you couldn't be more wrong about 2008. And are you suggesting the birth certificate kerfluffle was serious baggage? The media destroyed anyone who suggested it had merit and he sat back, chuckled and knew he just got another 5000 votes (exactly what he should have done, by the way).
McCain and Romney were NOT terrible candidates. Not at all. But the country HAS changed THAT much.
McCain got destroyed by the September meltdown and the Palin meltdown. Right candidate, bad timing. Romney got stereotyped and mocked even when he was right. And you think Obama dealt with insanity.
And the Republicans WISH they had a candidate as strong a McCain or Romney this time around. What a mess.
They actually have a number of candidates as strong, it's just that they're dealing with a media phenomenon that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The reaction and lack of fallout with respect to Trump's comments about McCain's time as a POW suggests strongly he would be doing no better this time around.
Jeb vs. Hill when the smoke clears. And it isn't gonna be close.
Too early to say it won't be close. Let's see where the server leads
Link - ( New Window )
Obama didn't have any baggage in 08 and in 12 the media ran duck and cover for him. I don't think Hillary gets that if she even gets to the nomination. McCain and Romney were terrible in the sense that they did not get the base out. Romney was better than McCain, which is why his performance was that much more disappointing.
Yeah, we're on the same planet, different worlds, big time.
For starters - PALLED AROUND WITH TERRORISTS!
REVEREND WRIGHT!!!
- FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- SECRET MUSLIM
- COMMUNIST FATHER!
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
Add to that the fearmongering over Obamacare.
They got the base out. In SPADES. Fear Factor to the nth degree.
The problem is, the base isn't there any more. More and more die off each year.
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
How many of these were around in 2008? Answer: NONE
And those issues that were around were met with scorn and derision by the media.
2008? You're delusional.
No, he didn't have Benghazi or e-mail - but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
His advantage in 08' was that it wasn't clear that he would be the Candidate for most of the campaign season - right wing was gunning for Hillary - Obama slipped under the radar.
Quote:
- APOLOGIST!
- BOWS TO FOREIGN KINGS
- AP SCANDAL
- FAST AND FURIOUS!!!
- SOLYNDRA
– DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
– BENGHAZI
– IRS SCANDAL
– NSA SCANDAL
– DOJ TARGETING CONSERVATIVES SCANDAL
– DOJ GOING AFTER REPORTERS & THE FREE PRESS SCANDAL
– VA SCANDAL
- SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! FASCIST! DICTATOR!
How many of these were around in 2008? Answer: NONE
And those issues that were around were met with scorn and derision by the media.
2008? You're delusional.
Which issues around in 2008 didn't deserve scorn and derision?
Lack of experience. Totally legit.
The birther and most of the other stuff was BS, although I thought he could be legitimately questioned about whether he agreed with the teachings of Rev. Wright.
The point is that the media, outside of the Rev. Wright story didn't take the stories and run with them. They mocked them. So the thought that Obama was under relentless broad based attack on them in 2008 is simply not the case.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
Quote:
but he DID have the albatross of 'NO EXPERIENCE' hanging around his neck.
What you refer to as an albatross is what most of the world would call a totally legitimate issue when it was applied to a Senator who had served less than 1 term.
It was a negative.
Just as a e-mail scandal is a negative. I'd venture to say that Obama's inexperience was a bigger negative factor in 08' then Hillary's e-mail scandal will be in 16'.
Time will tell.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
I just don't think it has teeth.
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
Easy to predict doom when the scandals are hot. Is e-mail really going to stay hot for a full year?
That's up to the FBI
email scandal = potentially illegal scandal representative of a fundamental character flaw
BIG difference.
Ultimately they may not find enough (or may choose to not find enough) to bring charges against Hilary but you're kidding if you don't think this is hurting the basic perception of her a trust worthy individual.
After 25 years of Clinton Bashing - THIS is what's going to make people finally not trust her?
OK.
Look - it's an ugly little scandal. Transparency dodging in it's worst form. Same as other Administrations and elected officials have been burned many times with.
If it really does come down to some sort of indictment, that's another story.
But if it doesn't? As Clinton scandals go? BOOOOO-RING!
Come on! Vince Foster, man! Connected to the DEATHS of Eighty-Something people! THAT is a Clinton Scandal. A SMELLY CIGAR is a Clinton Scandal.
E-mail. Please.
This is Hillary Clinton. She's like the friggin Terminator.
Given her opposition? The walking Biden gaffe machine or the Stammering Spitting Socialist on one side - the other side trying to outdo one another in outrageous comments.
Donald Trump. Seriously. THAT is how bad the Republican field is this year.
Marco Rubio would be dangerous if not for that pesky one issue - really, I think he's the most potent Republican candidate since Reagan.