Donald Trump

[Peter]

That CNBC debate was excruciatingly bad and I had to turn the channel. The lead in analysis was some of the most incompetent and biased that I have ever seen. ABC and CBS may be so-so but CNBC has got to be the worst of the worst. I think those bozos may work the cheapest and be paid the least of all the major studio’s employees.

Now it is time for some silly analysis of my own. How often does a President get his way? Often, but it would be too little for pouting Donald Trump to handle. Can you imagine Trump not getting something from Congress or a foreign country? Imagine the name calling, the insults and the chance to do irreparable, diplomatic damage. Would we hear this from a President Trump? "Kim Dung Un is a low down dirty rat. He wouldn’t dare fire on me, President Trump, when I inspect the wall I will build to keep North Korea out. And they will pay for the wall!"

Proud Canadian, William wrote: There will be scores -- if not hundreds -- of polls between now and the February caucuses in Iowa.
end quote

Here is an idea for SNL. What if Donald is caught wooing the pretty wife of Canada’s new head honcho? Well maybe that is a bit far-fetched but with The Donald’s possessiveness and temper, she could be another Helen of Troy. Blame Canada because we got trouble, right here in River City . . . if Trump is elected . . . and then, good bye restful sleep. So I am not crying over his drop in the polls, if they exist. Hmmm? 2020?
Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How often does a President get his way? Often, but it would be too little for pouting Donald Trump to handle. Can you imagine Trump not getting something from Congress or a foreign country? Imagine the name calling, the insults and the chance to do irreparable, diplomatic damage.

Peter,

You mean like Trump did earlier this week with Iowa when he didn't get his way?

Here, let Rush Limbaugh explain (transcript from his website of Oct. 28, 2015).

A Classic Trump Reaction to Iowa Polls

From the transcript:

I'll tell you, this is classic. You just don't see this. I don't recall ever having seen anything like this. I'm sure I have; I just don't recall it, it's that unique. It's that rare, what Donald Trump did when he found out he was losing in Iowa.

. . .

... there's something else that Trump did that you just don't see. And, by the way, a lot of people who hate Trump cannot believe he did it. When he found out that he was losing in Iowa, he went to Iowa and said, "You can't let me down like this. I have to win here. I promise you I'll do a good job. What do you mean, you can't abandon me like this. We're on a roll here." Most candidates wouldn't get anywhere near acknowledging that they were losing all of a sudden anywhere, particularly in Iowa. They'd go up, they'd talk, and they would pretend they don't even know what the polling data is, they're so far above it and so far removed, and it's so inconsequential, they wouldn't even mention it.

But Trump goes up there and reaches out to Iowans personally and says, "Come on, you gotta get me over the finish line here. I'll do the best job anybody would ever do for you." I guarantee you that a lot of media people who hate Trump who think he's this wealthy buffoon that's distant and removed are gonna look at that, probably have looked, and say, "Whoa, this is incredibly personal." And you know what it also is? In many people's view -- I don't think in Trump's case it is, but they will say, "Why, look at Trump. He's exposing his vulnerabilities to people. That takes real courage. That's not the Donald Trump that we know."

. . .

So Trump goes to Iowa, down in the polls, says (paraphrasing), "You know, I need to do some things to get back my popularity here." So that was his starter. I think is, if it's not a first, it's really rare and unique, and you don't hear politicians, which is key, do this. He went to Iowa, he went to the Sioux City, and he scolded them at first for abandoning him, and after scolding them, he asked, "What are you doing? There's nobody better than I am. I'll do a great job. I promise you." Listen to this. See what you think.

TRUMP: Would you get the numbers up, Iowa, please? This is ridiculous. I am second. It's not like terrible, but I don't like being second. In most polls I'm number one. Now, until Iowa came along, I said "every poll," and then Iowa, what the hell are you people doing to me? I refuse to say, "Get your asses in gear." I will not say that. So will you please do me a favor and work with my people and go out on February 1st and vote and give us a victory? (cheers and applause) When I heard the poll today, I said, "What are you gonna do?" I said, "I'm gonna work harder in Iowa. I'm not leaving Iowa." Now, if I lose Iowa, I will never speak to you people again.

RUSH: I guarantee you they ate it up...

. . .

Anyway, the Drive-Bys, since they don't see this kind of thing, the Drive-Bys think that Trump is begging for votes. They interpret the sound bite you just heard as victory for them. "Yeah, we did it. We took Trump out. He's out and he knows he's out. He's losing. He's peaked, and now he's been reduced to begging for votes." We have a montage. They think they've done Trump in, and they love it.

. . .

Let me ask you a question. Have the media been right yet about Trump? They have not. And F. Chuck [Todd] gave it up. This was always the moment we were waiting for. The media. The guys that sit around and report the news, supposedly. The people that sit around and record what happens and tell people who weren't there so that the people that weren't there can also know what happened. That's what F. Chuck does. No, they don't do that. That's the point. That's the image. That's the joke. They don't do that. They have been trying to take Trump out. And now they think they have. And my point to you is, they are so out of touch, they do not understand basic human relationships. They do not.

They are going to totally misinterpret the way Iowans are gonna react to Trump going to Sioux City, saying, "Hey, why are you letting me down? You can't let me down. You gotta get in gear. You gotta get in gear. I'll work hard for you, I promise. Number two, I've never been number two." They're not gonna understand the effectiveness of that. They're not gonna understand how it's gonna be received. They think it's begging.

How's them apples?

I predict this is going to work. From Rush's tone, I think he believes it, too.

There is a mainstream caricature of Trump, that he only knows how to insult others. After the recent poll drops in Iowa, those who think this way were getting their popcorn, settling in and expecting a show of word-bombs.

They sure as hell didn't predict Trump's response in Sioux City.

I suspect many will see Trump's tone here as a defeat and begging, but as Rush said, they have difficulty understanding human relationships, at least of this sort.

Granted, if Trump doesn't get what he wants from a dictator in another country, his Iowa tone will not be the one he will use. But it won't be kindergarten taunts, either.

Trump is a deal-maker.

One of the most skilled deal-makers alive right now. The USA is lucky he's an American.

And, to extend the thought beyond negotiating, when push comes to shove, I believe Trump will use the military well, but only when necessary.

Michael

[Selene]

Now it is time for some silly analysis of my own. How often does a President get his way? Often, but it would be too little for pouting Donald Trump to handle. Can you imagine Trump not getting something from Congress or a foreign country? Imagine the name calling, the insults and the chance to do irreparable, diplomatic damage. Would we hear this from a President Trump? "Kim Dung Un is a low down dirty rat. He wouldn’t dare fire on me, President Trump, when I inspect the wall I will build to keep North Korea out. And they will pay for the wall!"

Peter

The Donald would never do what Evita did, like calling Putin Hitler...

Excellent "silly analysis."

You achieved your goal.

A...

[william.scherk]

I watched the debate, read the transcript, and sampled the spectrum for reaction to the GOP performances. I also took a closer look at the internet-based snap surveys via Drudge, Time and CNBC.

I tried to put four hats on while re-reading the transcript. Under one hat I was looking merely for performance pieces, memes made vital by clipping and repetition, from the point of view of a GOP-leaning enthusiast. Under the next hat I looked for the memes that would spook or concern a Democrat-leaning enthusiast.

Under the last two hats, I tried to understand the most contradictory claims made for the debate, who 'won.' I allowed a bias free-rein. I empathized with the outsider-friendly voter, and then empathized with the GOP greybeards and bagmen.

Who 'won' the debate? Setting aside the insta-polling, I say the following 'lost' -- lost ground or stature -- in the debate: Bush, Kasich, Paul, Huckabee. Who gained were Rubio and Cruz. The others stood their ground and lost nothing tangible, not moving the needle much. The frontrunner effectively reinforced his economic message, and the close-second managed not to fall down a pit of stupid on his own economic plans. The most memorable meme-ish moment was Rubio effortlessly crushing Bush's attack on his Senate attendance.

Factual matters I mean to follow up are Carson's tax plan and the little scandalette about him fronting for an iffy supplement company. I thought the audience was more than satisfied with his explanation, but the knives are out, and the facts may not match Carson's claims. Media corps never take applause as a 'case closed' indicator. I hope for Carson's sake that the matter is exactly as he says, or he will be having many tiny jaws gnawing at his leg. It is the only issue so far flung at him that has any hint of compromising his integrity.

Trump's moments in the debate were most compelling when we hadn't heard it before, as when he showed he was ready for Kasich's boasts and mutterings. He effectively quashed any Ohio Advantage under Kasich's leadership by pointing to the fracking boom in that state. True or not, that one hit its target.

Cruz was a very effective performer, carrying out the most important job of tilting the mirrors back onto the Media Corps and the Clinton Corps. Instead of frying his erstwhile opponents under a focused beam, he tipped the balance for the entire crew on stage.

As for the moderators, they were no match for a squad of highly-trained political animals on the stage. They met only the simplest criteria -- raise questions about economic policy -- and failed to maintain a neutral civility in the form of questions. I may not be a GOP supporter, but I cringed when the 'comic book' question was asked. It was like they did no rehearsals and no sober editor was retained during the drafting of questions.

The first two waves of Media Corps pundits (including the secondary anti-Media Corp media corps) have put their thumbs on the scale for Rubio/Cruz. Trump 'won' by not losing, by ringing the same bells he rings every day on the campaign trail.

One curiosity stood out: Trump's lashing of so-called SuperPACs. Here he seems to be on the same bench as Clinton Corps and Democratic progressive wingers. But the issue of money swamping politics is one that resonates with an overwhelming majority of GOP supporters. This is going to be a button he can hit again and again as the campaign proceeds. It buzzes all his opponents except Clinton.

Win, lose, draw. After a week or so I will look at this again. If I had to pick just one person, having all the hats on at once, I say Marco Rubio emerged on top.

Loser? Bush, hands down. He may have SuperPAC millions necessary to continue to campaign, but his managers must be looking at their actor and thinking: does this guy even have 'it' anymore? The Bush who was on stage I imagined going up against Clinton in a debate, and I thought 'he will need regular jolts from a stun gun' ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wiliam,

I mostly agree with your analysis except for Ben Carson.

I believe there is a hidden push to him from the establishment machine, especially with the sudden favorable press, ads (the Club for Growth blitz), and polling monkey-business. And by establishment, I mean the back-backrooms where Democrat and Republican kingmakers meet.

Once Carson has served his purpose of damaging Trump, or the backroom boys conclude he can't, they will spit him out just like they did Carly, who fell for their game.

Ben Carson has a strong evangelical base, but I don't think it's as big as it appears right now. Frankly, I think he knows, it, too. I admit, I might be wrong...

Those establishment idiots should look at something, though. It's quite open that Carson and Trump communicate regularly, as do their campaign managers, and hold great affection for each other. I think it's a possibility they are playing the machine with small jabs at each other (to keep the chattering class chattering), when in reality, Carson wants a stint at VP (with Trump's full agreement) to learn the job beside a master negotiator before taking on the presidency.

I read his personality that way--based on how he became a world-famous brain surgeon from humble origins. He knows the value of a training period.

Michael

[Mark]

World famous for incompetence.

[Brant Gaede]

World famous for incompetence.

You and I are in no position to evaluate the competence of a neurosurgeon. Neurosurgeons must have extremely high insurance premiums. Almost all that surgery beyond the simple insertion of a shunt to drain off blood involves the destruction of brain cells looking for a better result than if no surgery had been performed. Hence the lawyers circle them and their patients like vultures.

A neighbor's child had brain surgery as a baby that left him almost blind and cognitively impaired. He functions pretty well today. Without the surgery he'd be long gone dead.

I get a whif of racism in Carson's professional criticism. I would bet closer investigation would result in a stink of that and/or jealousy if not envy.

--Brant

he might have been not so good (or vice versa), but if you need brain surgery hope for the luxury of multiple opinions

[Selene]

World famous for incompetence.

.000333333333 of his 18,000 surgeries plus an unknown amount of consults.

Do you have a purpose in posting this?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like Rush Limbaugh's analyses of Trump.

Rush has been consistently right from practically the beginning and I sense a lot of truth in what he says because I--me, MSK--am what he talks about re Trump supporter. When he says Trump's base folks think a certain thing (like, for example at the beginning, extreme irritation with John McCain's politics and weariness of excusing it because of his war record), I know they do because that's exactly what I think.

So Rush knows the appeal. The intellectuals, from left, right, libertarian, and God knows where else, keep getting it wrong as they make one failed prediction after another of Trump's demise.

Here is a transcript the latest, for example:

Hack Media Meme: Trump Fading
Rush Limbaugh
October 29, 2015

So I checked the e-mail during the break, and there was a fairly decent point. "Rush, you're ripping into Jeb's campaign people. But don't you realize, if it weren't for Trump, Jeb would probably be the guy with 20 points right now and this thing would be over?" Well, there that word is again: "If." Yeah, well, "if" a lot of things, then things would be different. But that actually kind of buttresses my point. You say, "If it weren't for Trump..." Well, it is for Trump. Trump is there. You'd better be able to adapt to it and you better be able to figure out why Trump is doing well.

And if the only ammo you've got with Trump is, "He's gonna blow it, he's gonna fade, he's gonna step in it, he's not gonna last, he doesn't really mean it, he's gonna get out," and that's all you can do, then you're not doing your job. It's not hard to explain Trump's success. It's really rather easy. That's why when I see The Politico story, "The Incredible Shrinking Trump." In their dreams. They haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about.

. . .

... the Democrat media does not see Republicans and conservatives in any way anywhere near a favorable, fair, even almost human way. It's not possible for them. Trump is a cartoon character to all of them, not just Harwood. He is a cartoon character to all of who they hate.

. . .

Remember, you people are a bunch of mind-numbed robots to the Drive-By Media. You are incapable of thinking on your own. Your public opinions are nothing but the result of whoever it is influencing you. Me, Fox News, whoever. You're incapable of independent thought, critical thought, what have you. You put these two things together and Trump's where he is precisely because he's a cartoon character, and you people are so shallow and so dense that that's what you want in a president.
You want reality TV.

You want low-rent scum as your leaders. You want this kind of thing, and that's who you're supporting, and then when those people, when the buffoons stop acting buffoonish and when the cartoon characters don't act cartoonish, uh-oh, they're in trouble. And we get a headline, "The Incredible Shrinking Trump." They haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about. They think Trump is fading. They think Trump may be losing support because he was quieter last night, because less bombastic, 'cause he was less Trump.

All this does is show how these hacks fail to understand the bond that exists between a candidate and his audience or voters. Let me give you one little hint, media. Donald Trump cannot be hurt by something he does not say. Donald Trump, nor any other candidate, cannot be hurt by something he does not do.

. . .

The media didn't make Trump. So, little hint, you media people: You can't take him out.

. . .

Trump has established a bond with his voters. There hasn't been anything happen that makes them lose any enthusiasm for him. The media isn't gonna be able to do that. Other candidates aren't gonna be able to do that. You're not gonna be able to beat Trump by taking him out. The only way anybody's gonna beat Trump is being better than he is, which is as it should be. The media thinks they can take anybody out they want to take out. So they're all: "Trump's in decline. Trump didn't show up last night. Trump was not nearly as bombastic. Trump wasn't who Trump is. Trump didn't insult Mexicans." Doesn't matter. Trump showed up. Trump was engaged. Trump had things to say and they made sense and he scored points, mission accomplished. What do you people think, that he has to go out and insult people like that's what you think he does and that's why you think people like him?

I tell you, all of this is so insulting to me.

. . .

The time has long passed that we need to stop catering to these people, as we though somehow need them. Because that's the message of this campaign: We don't need them. The leaders in this campaign have done it despite the media and without them, and that is a good lesson for everybody to learn.

Actually, I do disagree with Rush on a point at the end. But it's a nuance.

He implies that Trump has succeeded despite the media. (Rush isn't talking about all media here, just the pundits.)

I take it one step further.

Donald Trump constantly punks the media.

Michael

[Selene]

Rush is a brilliant man and despite every attempt to crush him for the last 20+ years, he gets better every year.

Weren't a number of OLer's burying Rush some years back with the Fluke, Fluck whatever her name was, on contraception incident."

I thought that Glenn Beck had that potential. However, he has gone a wandering into the intellectual dessert and hopefully he will find his way back.

I am wondering why we are not seeing Santorum's name mentioned in Iowa because his network is still active.

I agree with your analysis here.

A...

[Selene]

Here is where it really took off...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11800&page=8#entry158058

[Mark]

.000333333333 of his 18,000 surgeries plus an unknown amount of consults.

Do you have a purpose in posting this?

The point is that the characterization “world-famous surgeon” is misleading.

What was Selene’s point in quoting an incredible statistic?

Carson’s career spanned about 35 years. If he performed surgeries 5 days a week every week of every year except four weeks vacation, that’s 35*(52-4)*5 = 8400 days of surgery. A total of 18000 surgeries would be an average of 18000/8400 = 2.14 surgeries for each of those days. (Probably 5 days a week is an over-estimate, making 2.14 an under-estimate.)

Were I a lawyer for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit I would use that as evidence of incompetence. Working such a schedule, no surgeon could be adequately prepared for all of them.

Anyway the percentage is irrelevant because the malpractice was extreme, gross. It matters nothing to the victims and their loved ones that the percentage was tiny.

If the media went after Carson the way they do Trump they would ask him about it. And ask him about it, and ask him about it, ...

Interesting article about the campaign:

The Ben Carson Money Machine

[Brant Gaede]

Are you a lawyer? Have you experience in a surgeon's surgery schedule?

--Brant

[Mark]

RNC Suspends Debate Partnership With NBC

“... due to the total lack of substance and respect exhibited during Wednesday night’s debate.”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Part of the political problem with exploiting mistakes by preeminent productive people like Ben Carson and Donald Trump is that their true base of support is other productive people.

And productive people know that nobody has a 1000 batting average.

To productive people, they are far more interested in knowing if mistakes get corrected enough that they are not repeated as a pattern. They don't want to see screw-ups keep screwing up and saying they are not screwing up.

This is far different than the gotcha media culture where a typical politician gets destroyed by words and victimization stories because, productively, he has nothing to back himself up with except words and stories. Take those away and he's got nothing.

Ben Carson's achievements, just like Trump's, are not just stories. They happened. They left traces. Magnificent traces. Lots of them. Take the word games and stories away and look what's left. All kinds of great stuff, that's what.

From the perspective of those who look at real-world achievements, this speaks louder than any words. And the preeminence of Trump and Carson's achievements is the frame the lookers use to evaluate their failures. This is by default, but it is very difficult to understand by those who only think in gotcha games. This blindness is why they can't explain people like Trump (although they try, poor things ) and why they can't predict anything about him. They don't accept the existence of the productive perspective.

But it exists and it is killing them.

This is why, ratings-wise, Trump has been immune to their vicious attacks. I suspect this will be the case with Ben Carson, too.

Think just about the black community. For a productive black person, who is the real man of achievement? Ben Carson or Barack Obama? One was a brain surgeon. The other was a community organizer, i.e., a politician all his life. Obama gets kudos from these productive people for his Harvard education, but after school, he became a government animal, not a producer to them. To tribal blacks, Obama is the greatest. To productive blacks, Obama doesn't hold a candle to Ben Carson.

One caveat. Obviously, lots of people are productive. So I don't mean that tribal people or gotcha people aren't productive. When I use productive as an adjective, I am talking about those who hold productivity over community (and things like that) among their top values.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Speaking of productive people who have corrected their mistakes:

http://www.space.com/30969-virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash.html

[Brant Gaede]

RNC Suspends Debate Partnership With NBC

“... due to the total lack of substance and respect exhibited during Wednesday night’s debate.”

Understandable. The questioners were from NBC's business channel which I usually watch on mute for the same reason I turned off the debate after a few questions. Professionally they have to be pretending they are performing a valuable service for investors with their and most of their guests suggesting to do this or that with this or that and the world is going to hell and it isn't. If they didn't do this they have no jobs. CNBC is out of business. They weren't out to get the candidates so much as they were merely doing what they do back in New York with their guests. Talk loud, forcefully, with conviction and never say "I don't know" or you'll not be asked back, ever. Over-stated bullshit is okay if it's not too obvious. Understated truth isn't. The exceptions, for guests, are investing icons like Buffett and Ican and Zell and Tepper and some other pre-market open guests on "Squawk Box."

--Brant

[Peter]

From Realclear. Pennsylvania: Trump by one percent over Carson. Texas: Trump by one percent over Carson. Oklahoma: Carson by 6 percent over Trump. CBS/NY Times: Carson 26 to Trump’s 22. South Carolina Trump 23 Carson 19. North Carolina: Trump 31 to Carson 23. So it is not just Iowa where Trump has slumped.

A CNN poll showed that Trump has no problem with GOP women, however in the general election, he is viewed less favorably by women, and among GOP, Dem, independents and no preference voters Real Clear Politics has Hillary with a 2.5 percent lead, nationally, over Trump.

Associated Press: . . . . Trump is viewed UN-favorably by 72 percent of Hispanics, with 6 in 10 having a very unfavorable opinion of him, the AP-GfK poll finds. Only 11 percent view him favorably. Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights advocacy group, said the findings are no surprise and "consistent from what we've heard from the community."
end quote

It is a surprise that 25 percent of black voters said they would vote for Trump over Hillary. But that still means losing the black vote by a huge margin.

So add it up. Hillary gets a clear majority of women and Hispanic voters. Of course the candidates have not completed a national campaign but at this time it appears that Trump could NOT get 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election. If Trump is not electable, then you should not push him as a winner, but I will concede that as of now, Trump is still the best candidate to beat Hillary.

Worst case scenario. Trump is not going to get the Hispanic vote and I doubt he will get the woman’s vote, no matter what shifts occur in his campaign. Remember how PC young people overwhelmingly voted for the first black president simply because he was black? The same may happen with the first serious female candidate, Hillary. Hillary gets the women’s vote, the young people’s vote, she gets the male Hispanics, plus Hillary gets the union vote, etc. Can that be changed? Will the mighty Casey strike out? People talk about Trump being a builder, but I am not sure such a divisive person can build a decent campaign. When and if it becomes Trump against Hillary, he will belittle her and white men will cheer, Ole! But the bull will be gored by a cunning women with her media, demographic sword and the sympathy vote.

Why I could just weep.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know, Peter.

Real Clear Politics polling aggregates have Trump going into an upswing (over the entire month of October) after a slump, see here. (Move your mouse over the graph until it gets to Oct. 1 and you will see what I mean.)

Carson is going up, too. Everyone else is staying the same or going down.

As to young people, I suspect Trump's Nov. 7 appearance hosting SNL will not be his only incursion into the young crowd with good results. Wait until some huge young pop stars get on board, as several inevitably will once they detect this will not tank their fan base and might even increase it.

As to women, think about all those middle American women who never vote, but will vote for Trump this time around. Intellectuals generally call them stay-at-home moms, housewives, or bimbos. (How the left and other elites get away with this and still be perceived as fighting sexism is beyond me.)

Finally, this should warm your heart enough to hold the tears off:

With anti-trade message, Trump targets 'Reagan Democrats'

From the article: "There are signs that Trump’s strategy is working."

So it looks like he is going to get them, too.

(And despite the journalist's spin, Trump is very much pro-trade. He just believes in deal making, using leverage when you have it and not making suicide deals with people in other countries. His thing is fairness and competition, not stupidity and crony corporatism.)

Michael

[Peter]

Perhaps home politics is tinging my view but I am having a hard time being optimistic. I thought Cruz was the star of the last debate.

Michael wrote: Carson is going up, too. Everyone else is staying the same or going down.
end quote

Trump is good primary material but Oh, woe is me. With Trump’s mishandling of women, Asians, and Hispanics, and the unlikelihood of him getting the youth vote, how is Trump going to win in the general election?

Michael wrote: As to women, think about all those middle American women who never vote, but will vote for Trump this time around. Intellectuals generally call them stay-at-home moms, housewives, or bimbos. (How the left and other elites get away with this and still be perceived as fighting sexism is beyond me.)
end quote

I don’t see Trump getting a majority of the women’s vote. Trump may get the evangelical, social conservatives but that is no longer a majority, and I sincerely think the women in that group will SECRETLY, IF NECESSARILY, vote for Hillary too.

Trump will get the white male vote if he does not piss off too many republican supporters of Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Carson, etc. BUT that ain’t going to happen. I hope libertarians will bite the bullet and vote for Trump but this could be one election where the libertarian candidate may get more than one percent of the vote. Crude, rude and tarring everyone is Trump’s style. As Trump likes to say, “Period, end of story.”

And remember history?
Peter

Notes: Obama defeated Romney, winning both the popular vote and the electoral college, with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. He became the eleventh President and third Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote more than once. Obama carried all states and districts (among states that allocate electoral votes by district) that he had won in the 2008 presidential election except North Carolina, Indiana, and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.

Screw ups. At a private event, Romney said that 47 percent of the people would vote for Barack Obama no matter what Romney said or did because those people "...are dependent upon government... I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives".

From Wikipedia, the 2012 election. States where the margin of victory was under 5% (75 electoral votes) unless you see Romney’s name it was won by Obama: North Carolina, 2.04% for Romney, Florida, 0.88%, Ohio, 2.98%, Virginia, 3.87%.
States/districts where the margin of victory was between 5% and 10% (119 electoral votes): Colorado, 5.37%, Pennsylvania, 5.39%, New Hampshire, 5.58% Iowa, 5.81% Nevada, 6.68% Wisconsin, 6.94% Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, 7.16% for Romney, Minnesota, 7.69%, Georgia, 7.82% for Romney, Maine's 2nd Congressional District, 8.56%, Arizona, 9.06% for Romney, Missouri, 9.38% for Romney, Michigan, 9.50%.

[Peter]

After I sent my last email, I thought some more about demographics. Carly is one possible Trump choice for VEEP. However, Condoleeza Rice is better.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

Trump is finished. All he needs is something to save face. One of his "famous" deals.

--Brant

Ted and Cory (or Rubio)

Carson and Cory or Cory and Carson

Bush, Christie (is that his first or last name?), Kraish (sp?), Huckabee (and who else) all all gone with the D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gentlemen,

I see I need to increase my crow pen.

It's going to be a bigger barbeque than I thought.

Gonna have a lot of Trump-denying folks to feed...

Michael

[Selene]

This is why the Crow recipe site is so necessary...I think to be fair, since we will have so many to feed, that we make it a smorgasbord:

http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.html

They even have a crow cabob recipe...

[Backlighting]

Haven't seen an all you-can-eat crow buffet here in LV.

Might be on to something.

-J