|
Post by tardis218 on Jan 27, 2016 5:27:37 GMT
Fun times. I guess Trump will be there in spirit, so he doesn't want Kelly there.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Jan 27, 2016 5:52:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 27, 2016 16:28:29 GMT
Trump's hilariously bad pandering does not seem to be convincing religious voters he's one of them. More fuel for the idea he's going to underperform in the Iowa Caucus.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 27, 2016 16:30:32 GMT
If I were Fox, I'd stand my ground. I'm no fan of Fox or Sky's news (possible exception: 2014 Scotland referendum commercial), but Trump is just having a hissy fit over being asked serious things. In big news which is getting little coverage (on cable news, as far as I know), Ammon Bundy and several others were arrested in a joint FBI/Oregon State Police operation. About time they did something.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Jan 27, 2016 17:52:41 GMT
Trump isn't doing this because he's petty (though he certainly is). He's doing it for the ratings and attention. As Thande said on AH.Com, now people will pay more attention to Trump than to anyone else in the debate, whether he shows up or not.
Trump is more canny than we think he is. Everyone who's underestimated him so far has regretted it. Remember that.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Jan 27, 2016 21:32:04 GMT
Trump isn't doing this because he's petty (though he certainly is). He's doing it for the ratings and attention. As Thande said on AH.Com, now people will pay more attention to Trump than to anyone else in the debate, whether he shows up or not. Trump is more canny than we think he is. Everyone who's underestimated him so far has regretted it. Remember that. With the exceptions of certain investors. The free market may not always be accurate, but Trump's poor performance in said marketplace (with his repeated bankruptcies) have lowered many investors' opinions of him. Speaking of Trump, in a recent week, 62% of people he retweeted followed multiple white supremacist twitter accounts. www.getlittlebird.com/blog/data-62-of-the-people-donald-trump-rted-this-week-follow-multiple-white-supremacist-accounts
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 27, 2016 21:57:43 GMT
Trump isn't doing this because he's petty (though he certainly is). He's doing it for the ratings and attention. As Thande said on AH.Com, now people will pay more attention to Trump than to anyone else in the debate, whether he shows up or not. Trump is more canny than we think he is. Everyone who's underestimated him so far has regretted it. Remember that. It's scary how competent he is.
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on Jan 27, 2016 22:39:12 GMT
It's scary how competent he is. It's not that scary. He's been a media fixture for decades, he knows exactly how the game is played. I'm very impressed by Trump. Not gonna vote for him, but I'm very impressed. We need someone like that working for the real Right, rather than usurping our party as a populist strongman.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 28, 2016 20:01:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 29, 2016 1:32:44 GMT
Anybody else delighting in the GOP establishment's loss of control? They created a reactionary movement to win Congress in 2010, and now Trump is using that movement to take over the party. I might be delighted if I wasn't terrified. He's got a real chance, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he wins anything in the South then we have something...
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Jan 29, 2016 5:42:20 GMT
Anybody else delighting in the GOP establishment's loss of control? They created a reactionary movement to win Congress in 2010, and now Trump is using that movement to take over the party. I might be delighted if I wasn't terrified. He's got a real chance, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he wins anything in the South then we have something... Indeed. This makes me almost miss George W. Bush. As for Sanders, should he win in SC, Clinton's toast. Who knows? If African-Americans remember how she and her husband tried to derail Obama...it might be no contest. In other political news: Paul Krugman is now a "very serious person", a phrase he once mocked. theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-himself-arbiter-of-seriousness-only-clinton-supporters-eligible/The Onion may get censored on some topics, thanks to its new owner. theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial-supporter-now-controls-the-onion/A Super-PAC, "Black Americans for a Better Future" got all its funding from white guys. theintercept.com/2016/01/28/black-americans-for-a-better-future-super-pac-100-funded-by-rich-white-guys/Hillary Clinton's leading contributor back in 2000 was a rather shady character- though TBMK, he was the one trying to use Clinton, not the other way around. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._PaulMichael Moore has started a petition in response to the disaster in Flint, Michigan. michaelmoore.com/DontSendBottledWater/
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 29, 2016 5:59:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 29, 2016 18:18:00 GMT
Hypothetical: In a Trump/Sanders/Bloomberg race, could Bloomberg win enough states to deadlock the electoral college?
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 30, 2016 2:21:42 GMT
I don't really see a large base out there for Bloomberg. He'd really have to (somehow) supplant one of the others completely to win states and then the question would be if Trump or Sanders could win enough to force it the the House. And a Trump and a Sanders that have won their primaries will not be so easy to supplant. Theoretically there could be an a block of centralist Democrats and moderate Republicans, bot free-traders, but good luck with that. A centrist run is the John Anderson road to oblivion (as a best case). The biggest third party/Independent runs (sans Roosevelt's which doesn't apply here obviously) have been built on populism: Perot, the Populist Party, and the Dixiecrats (for a certain definition of populism). But Sanders and Trump are already hitting that from different angles. So unless there's really bad feelings from Clinton and a full scale revolt of her supporters (would they want Bloomberg anyway) I really don't see it. If Bloomberg does draw from Republicans satisfied with Trump that would make it a near sure win for Democrats if they could close ranks, so they'd be a lot of pressure.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Jan 30, 2016 4:33:30 GMT
Hypothetical: In a Trump/Sanders/Bloomberg race, could Bloomberg win enough states to deadlock the electoral college? Potentially. Then again, outside the media establishment and politicians turned off by Trump and Sanders, and possibly the NYC area, Bloomberg does not have much of a base. (Then again, we have seen at least one candidate snatch victory after losing his own party's nomination- in part by getting leaders of the other party to back him- Joe Lieberman in 2006. (I wish Republicans had made a big deal about the abandonment of Alan Schlesinger.))
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 30, 2016 11:32:12 GMT
I don't really see a large base out there for Bloomberg. He'd really have to (somehow) supplant one of the others completely to win states and then the question would be if Trump or Sanders could win enough to force it the the House. And a Trump and a Sanders that have won their primaries will not be so easy to supplant. Theoretically there could be an a block of centralist Democrats and moderate Republicans, bot free-traders, but good luck with that. A centrist run is the John Anderson road to oblivion (as a best case). The biggest third party/Independent runs (sans Roosevelt's which doesn't apply here obviously) have been built on populism: Perot, the Populist Party, and the Dixiecrats (for a certain definition of populism). But Sanders and Trump are already hitting that from different angles. So unless there's really bad feelings from Clinton and a full scale revolt of her supporters (would they want Bloomberg anyway) I really don't see it. If Bloomberg does draw from Republicans satisfied with Trump that would make it a near sure win for Democrats if they could close ranks, so they'd be a lot of pressure. My thought was that Bloomberg would attract enough blue dog Democrats and establishment Republicans to throw a few normally-solid states in disarray. A general election with Trump and Sanders is going to make a lot of people be repulsed by the polarization of the two parties and look for a centrist alternative. One way or another, 2016 is going to be insane. Probably going to be the most interesting election since 1992, and maybe even since 1968.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 30, 2016 18:38:13 GMT
I could see Blue Dogs supporting Trump over Bloomberg. They also might have Webb to vote for if he's at all relevant. Depending on where Bloomberg is drawing from I see your point about throeing states in disarray - like tilting Georgia or Minnesota if he is getting more from one side or the other (this of course would be a landslide win for the party he's not drawing from), but if he is drawing relatively equally from both sides he does a Perot, where he takes votes from both sides without effecting the map. If Bloomberg is strong enough to actually win states it's a whole new ball game obviously, but I don't think that's likely.
Doesn't matter anyways as Clinton is going to be the nominee and the likely worry for Democrats will be possible left-wing apathy.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 31, 2016 0:22:43 GMT
Final Des Moines Register Poll:
Trump - 28 Cruz - 23 Rubio - 15
Clinton - 45 Sanders - 42
Cruz might be fading, but if he keeps the evangelical base he can pull off a caucus victory. Rubio seems poised to do well enough to maintain his great establishment hope position. Sanders is within the error margin and it's going to come down to turnout. Hoping to feelthebern.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 31, 2016 0:26:34 GMT
Doesn't matter anyways as Clinton is going to be the nominee and the likely worry for Democrats will be possible left-wing apathy. You keep confidently stating that, in the same way people were confidently stating Cruz would win Iowa a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by ToixStory on Jan 31, 2016 0:31:07 GMT
Doesn't matter anyways as Clinton is going to be the nominee and the likely worry for Democrats will be possible left-wing apathy. You keep confidently stating that, in the same way people were confidently stating Cruz would win Iowa a few weeks ago. I'm for Clinton and I'm not that confident. I think she has a good chance of winning, but I know it'll be close. Luckily for me, Bernie is my 2nd choice for candidates so I kind of win either way.
|
|