Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The establishment Republicans are now on notice.

 

Come after Trump with attack ads, he will come back harder, dollar for dollar if not double and triple.

 

 

Does anybody doubt Trump has the ability to make devastating attack ads?

 

 

btw - His only criticism of Ben Carson is "low energy." (He has to say something to explain why he is better than Carson.) I have a feeling there is some complicity going on because there is very little complaint about this from Carson's side. That leads a lot of people to speculate that Carson will be invited to be Trump's vice. But I don't expect that. I do expect to see him as Surgeon General.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For y'all eminent domain haters, especially those who hate Trump because of it, who love the Keystone Pipeline:

 

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As head of the Executive branch, any President will be signing off on violating individual rights no matter how hard he tries not to.

--Brant

[Selene]

Ssh let's just keep this between us xenophobes...

our secret code...ya know like those Masons....

“I don’t care if he likes me or not as a Hispanic or Latino, as long he creates the jobs he promised,” said Carlo Maffatt, a Mexican immigrant who lives in Las Vegas and who did political liaison work in the Hispanic community for Republicans during the 2012 presidential election. “He is never going to take me out for a beer, so it doesn’t matter whether I like him or not either.

“The job of the president of the United Stats is to create jobs, not to be the friend of every American,” Mr. Maffatt said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/3/donald-trump-could-win-over-hispanics-who-fear-job/

[Selene]

And then you get this:

The question I pose about Sanders beating Trump is highly plausible, because it is based on hard data from two recent polls, including from The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberal bias.

On one level let’s give Trump great credit. In this campaign he has been — literally — the most brilliant manager of television news in the modern history of presidential politics. In the years I worked for Democratic leaders, if I had achieved for them the near total domination of network and cable television news coverage that the real estate tycoon has achieved, I would have received the most generous raise in congressional staff history.

My view of Trump is similar to my view of Drudge, who is the most powerful influencer in modern media history when it comes to what is covered by the news business. Drudge towers over the media like a colossus. News leaders read The Drudge Report like Talmudic scholars poring over ancient scrolls. News stories blessed by Drudge flow like mighty rivers from his keyboard to television screens and daily newspapers in living rooms across the nation.

Such textbook propagandist tactic. Compliment the target before you cut it's throat, or, try to.

Let’s dismiss the myth of liberal media bias. The CNBC debate was perfectly fair. Harwood, as well as the other debate moderators, has earned the wide respect he has achieved in his career. America is not Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where “debates” are controlled by party hacks and journalists are corrupted by money, seduced by power or intimidated by threats. Our news media should not resemble the news business of Paddy Chayefsky’s timeless film “Network,” as it often does today.

When America’s premier journal of capitalism releases a poll showing the democratic socialist candidate defeating by a landslide margin the capitalist who dominates television news, methinks it is liberals, not conservatives, who have the better argument against bias!

The assumptions that this clown swallows is appalling.

A...

http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/259182-brent-budowsky-sanders-trouncing-trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump doesn't need to campaign when there are idiots out there doing things like the following:

 

 

This even hit the main headline of Drudge.

 

 

The heartland and decent working-class families, ones who worry about raising good kids, will be horrified by this.  

 

If I were evil-thinking, I would imagine that this video was done by a Trump supporter.

 

But then again, am I evil-thinking?

 

 

(Seriously, Trump is savvy enough to do this, but I don't think it's his style. I do believe Latino radicals are stupid enough to think the shock value will persuade people--oddly enough, trying to out-Trump Trump on saying outrageous things. But, if they truly want to persuade, they should stay away from outrageous--especially making kids be nasty. They just don't do it right. Why? Because they don't get anything about the average American. They're thinking like a collective.)

 

Michael

[Selene]

Trump doesn't need to campaign when there are idiots out there doing things like the following:

.....

The heartland and decent working-class families, ones who worry about raising good kids, will be horrified by this.

If I were evil-thinking, I would imagine that this video was done by a Trump supporter.

But then again, am I evil-thinking?

(Seriously, Trump is savvy enough to do this, but I don't think it's his style. I do believe Latino radicals are stupid enough to think the shock value will persuade people--oddly enough, trying to out-Trump Trump on saying outrageous things. But, if they truly want to persuade, they should stay away from outrageous--especially making kids be nasty. They just don't do it right. Why? Because they don't get anything about the average American. They're thinking like a collective.)

Michael

Do you know who is funding this?

A...

[Peter]

I started out thinking I would post to the Carly or Ben threads but as I typed I was pulled like a magnet to the Trump thread. I don't think Trump would fund a gross, but sure to back fire ad, against himself. ONE such conspiratorial insinuation would ruin his chances for the Presidency.

Others have mentioned some demographically sound candidates as possible running mates for whoever wins the nomination. Condoleezza Rice, Carly, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio are a few good VP candidates. Considering the electoral college, Ohio and Florida are two key states so I would add Kasich and Jeb Bush to the list. Forget New Jersey and Christie. However, if a Republican candidate has portrayed a primary competitor as less than Presidential, and Trump and Paul come readily to mind, it would be more difficult to select them as VP.

I listened to former front runner Herman Cain yesterday and he suggested the candidates have a crisis management team reading to spin the news, in case of a scandal or ill-spoken quote from years ago surfacing. Trump might consider that.

He is going to be demonized by Hillary if he is nominated. Flip flops, campaign riots, prior statements and wives will be used to caricature him. And his positions, and broad strokes when criticizing, have cost him with neocons, libertarians, women, Hispanics, and Asians. National polls consistently show him trailing Hillary while other candidates consistently beat her . . . as of now.

Michael has mentioned that Trump will have some excellent attack ads and a vibrant campaign. If he is nominated I think Trump WILL get a lot of donations. I tend to think he needs to be quick on his feet but a bit slower and deliberate when speaking. A great campaign is worth electoral votes.
Peter

From W.W. Norton Publishing Company. There is a high level of skepticism as to how much presidential campaigns can actually affect the outcomes of the elections—in many cases, the state of the economy, the underlying political landscape, and other factors that are out of the hands of the candidates may be more significant. However, campaigns act as an important disseminator of information on the candidate, as well as reminders to constituents where their loyalties should lie . . . . The second goal is that after being nominated, the candidate must gain a majority of seats in the Electoral College . . . . There are situations in which these two goals conflict with one another. Voters in primaries and at state conventions and caucuses are usually much more idealistic and expect their potential nominees to adhere strongly to the party line. The important votes to gain in the general election are usually moderate voters who are much more centrist in their beliefs, so the candidates must devise a strategy, either by slightly changing their message or by finding a consistent middle ground, that does not alienate these voters.

Choosing a Running Mate. It is important for any presidential candidate with the party’s backing to choose the right vice-presidential candidate. The presidential candidate and their campaign generally have five different types of candidate that they can choose from: a candidate whose strengths compensate for any weaknesses on the part of the main candidate; a candidate who can carry an important state or region; a candidate who can carry a specific interest or demographic group; a candidate who can heal wounds within the political party; or a candidate who reinforces the image the campaign is trying to convey . . . The timing of the announcement of who the vice-presidential candidate is can also be important—sometimes announcing a long time before the national convention ensures that the vice-presidential candidate choice will get a lot of coverage and media attention, while announcing right before the convention can sometimes maximize the hype of the choice, as well as put a lot of focus on the convention itself . . . .

The Electoral College gives candidates a goal to work towards—270 electoral votes are needed to win the election. Strategy usually revolves around a certain number of states that will get the candidates past that 270-seat mark, and candidates focus their attention and funding on the states that are most cost-effective in that light. Candidates must decide whether to target states that usually lean toward their political party in order to ensure their support, or to “play offense” and campaign hard in states that usually swing towards the opponent’s political party. In general, however, the realities of the Electoral College focus a large amount of attention on a very small handful of states . . . . Campaign managers and candidates also understand how outside factors can immediately change the opinions of voters, and so campaigns are very sensitive to constant changes in the field, using polls in order to see if they need to tweak their messages, or take a bigger step, such as pursue negative campaigning—usually done by candidates who are behind in the polls.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If he is nominated I think Trump...

Peter,

Those words are music to my ears.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you know who is funding this?

Adam,

I haven't done any research (too little time). I'm sure others are researching it, though, and something will come out over time in the places I haunt.

I don't believe in accidents in things as well-produced as that video. That big toothy mouth on the main kid plays right into an ugly stereotype. It even seems like the kid was coached to exaggerate this.

Whether that was a boneheaded Trump supporter, or a boneheaded Latino radical trying to be even more outrageous, I can't say. My hunch is it's a misfire by a Latino radical, but I admit a pro-Trump bias.

Michael

[Selene]

Do you know who is funding this?

Adam,

I haven't done any research (too little time). I'm sure others are researching it, though, and something will come out over time in the places I haunt.

I don't believe in accidents in things as well-produced as that video. That big toothy mouth on the main kid plays right into an ugly stereotype. It even seems like the kid was coached to exaggerate this.

Whether that was a boneheaded Trump supporter, or a boneheaded Latino radical trying to be even more outrageous, I can't say. My hunch is it's a misfire by a Latino radical, but I admit a pro-Trump bias.

Michael

I think you only respond to who abused those children to make them perform like little animals!

Other than that, I would dismiss any question and nail the questioner and spin into his message on build the wall, Vets and jobs...

Ya know just like the marxists do...

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump's first campaign ad for Iowa. It's for radio, so the images in the video below are not part of it. Just the audio.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uK4-15BgHxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Notice what he said near the end:
 

If the people of Iowa vote for me, you'll never be disappointed. I don't disappoint people. I produce.

 
I fucking PRODUCE, baby.
 
Yes!

 

Yes!

 

Yes!
 

 
Michael

[Selene]

Messaging, messaging and messaging ...

Location, location and location...

Very nicely done.

Tight.

Hits the main themes.

Positive.

A...

Where are the sisters?

[Marc]

Zero chance way back at the start of this thread, zero chance today , zero chance for the nomination .

Fun 82 pages so far

[Brant Gaede]

Trump's first campaign ad for Iowa. It's for radio, so the images in the video below are not part of it. Just the audio.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uK4-15BgHxM"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Notice what he said near the end:

If the people of Iowa vote for me, you'll never be disappointed. I don't disappoint people. I produce.

I fucking PRODUCE, baby.

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

Michael

I did too--today.

--Brant

felt great!

[Peter]

Marc wrote: Zero chance way back at the start of this thread, zero chance today, zero chance for the nomination.
end quote


Marc reminds me of Earnest Shackleton’s recruitment ad for “Shackleton’s 1914 Antarctic Expedition:” Officers wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.
end quote

Zero? Zero? Zero? There will never be a woman President. There will never be a black President. There will never be a Hispanic President. Someone asserted that there was already a gay (but in the closet) President, but I forget which President. You can’t be taken seriously if you say zero chance, Marc. It’s about 50-50 right now.

Remember Ronald Reagan, our 40th President? He was an actor then twice elected as President of the Screen Actor’s Guild, Governor of California in 1966 during a time of great protest, and he was reelected in 1970, and then elected twice to the Presidency in 1980 and 1984. An actor might be less of a resume builder than being a CEO and billionaire.

I yearn to be free and Trump might do as well as Ronald Reagan. I liked Donald's Iowa radio ad.
Peter

[Selene]

Look at that The Donald is already bringing us together!

[BaalChatzaf]

Marc wrote: Zero chance way back at the start of this thread, zero chance today, zero chance for the nomination.

end quote

Marc reminds me of Earnest Shackleton’s recruitment ad for “Shackleton’s 1914 Antarctic Expedition:” Officers wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.

end quote

Zero? Zero? Zero? There will never be a woman President. There will never be a black President. There will never be a Hispanic President. Someone asserted that there was already a gay (but in the closet) President, but I forget which President. You can’t be taken seriously if you say zero chance, Marc. It’s about 50-50 right now.

Remember Ronald Reagan, our 40th President? He was an actor then twice elected as President of the Screen Actor’s Guild, Governor of California in 1966 during a time of great protest, and he was reelected in 1970, and then elected twice to the Presidency in 1980 and 1984. An actor might be less of a resume builder than being a CEO and billionaire.

I yearn to be free and Trump might do as well as Ronald Reagan. I liked Donald's Iowa radio ad.

Peter

It is rumored that Lincoln might have had a homosexual encounter. And Filmore was reputed to be gay.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can’t be taken seriously if you say zero chance, Marc. It’s about 50-50 right now.

Ah... sweet music...

I yearn to be free and Trump might do as well as Ronald Reagan. I liked Donald's Iowa radio ad.

So if Peter is being swayed (not that he is fully on board yet), how many other former skeptics are out there?

The hills are alive...

With the sound of cawing... music...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Donald responds about the potty-mouth kiddie ad.

 

He thinks the people who did that are stupid because it is backfiring and (like I said) causing more people to support him.

 

 

He also says a lot of other interesting things in his talk with Maria Bartiromo, especially about jobs. 

 

Michael

[Peter]

The hills are alive , . . With the sound of cawing ... and music . . . and pontificating. It will take a few major wins to convince Marc about who MIGHT win the nomination and election and that includes the politically rebellious Trump. I confess, I voted for McCain but not in a primary. John had a little bit of sugar to make the medicine go down too. Sarah Palin. What will Trump use for sugar? Sarah is available.

After recently being wrong so many times, is polling dead? Not by a long shot. I think they will redo their methodology. And with the demise of the landline phone they will need to upgrade to the internet and cell phones, which opens the way for fraud and more bad polls, but where there is a will there is a way. If we shy away from polling data where can we go for evidence? A website? A network like Fox that claims to be fair and balanced? Certainly not the lame stream media in general which is heavily biased towards their totalitarian agenda.

Unfortunately a lot of younger people go to satiric television commentators like SNL, Colbert and Stewart both who recently retired or moved on. Good riddance. You could not pay me to watch Colbert on late night TV. And for the right, Rush Limbaugh is nearing retirement age, but I hope he sticks around. Will he be on radio when he is 70 and will he still be at the top of his game? Who will be the next Rush? Levin? Mark Stein? Glen Beck? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity? All of them are more annoying and not as good as Rush.
Peter

Notes. From Rasmussen. Tuesday, November 03, 2015 What America Thinks: America’s Bummed. It looks like Americans have a case of the blues. They just don’t seem to have a lot of faith left in the country. Why so glum? We decided to find out what America thinks. For starters, voters are pessimistic about the direction of the country: The number who think the United States is heading in the right direction has not topped 35% since early 2013 and has stayed in the mid- to high-20s since July. Belief that America’s best days are still to come now hovers near its lowest level this year. Just 33% of voters feel that way. A third also now feel U.S. society is unfair and discriminatory, the highest finding in several years of surveying. Even more (51%) say the economy is unfair to those who are willing to work hard when hard work for generations has been viewed as the gateway to success.

But then most these days also consider the U.S. economy unfair to the middle class, long the backbone of this country. Americans worry about race relations, too. Just 17% rate race relations as good or excellent, down from 34% a year earlier. Perhaps the icing on the cake? At a time when nearly two-out-of three voters think the government has too much power over their lives, just 19% trust the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to their individual freedoms. For Rasmussen Reports, I’m Alex Boyer. Remember, if it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.

[Selene]

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/embed.js?id=4599677651001&w=466&h=263"></script>

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

He also says a lot of other interesting things in his talk with Maria Bartiromo, especially about jobs.

Michael

For all the doubters, this should cause them to honestly check their premises on what type of person is necessary to occupy the office/position of Chief Executive of the US.

His knowledge and clear understanding of how things work and how to produce ring clearly.

When Maria Bartiromo is nodding her head at every juncture and agreeing with his analysis, numbers and methodological approach to economic reality.

Of particular note is his stating the devastating effects of the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world, corporate inversions and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's on unemployment and the bleeding economy.

A...

[Selene]

After recently being wrong so many times, is polling dead? Not by a long shot. I think they will redo their methodology. And with the demise of the landline phone they will need to upgrade to the internet and cell phones, which opens the way for fraud and more bad polls, but where there is a will there is a way. If we shy away from polling data where can we go for evidence? A website? A network like Fox that claims to be fair and balanced? .

Peter

Good point Peter.

However, the cell phone issue has been positively addressed over the last two (2) Presidential cycles in their methodology.

The real problem is the projected turnout models which are cleverly "weighted" to enhance Democratic voter turnout assumptions and depress the Republican/Evangelical, Tea Party, conservative and libertarian voter turnout assumptions.

This is done to "nudge" outcomes.

One of the major reasons that they missed the Kentucky race so badly was the defect in their assumptive models.

Quite similar to the Global/cooling/warming/climate change modeling.

A...

[william.scherk]

The real problem is the projected turnout models which are cleverly "weighted" to enhance Democratic voter turnout assumptions and depress the Republican/Evangelical, Tea Party, conservative and libertarian voter turnout assumptions.

This is done to "nudge" outcomes.

One of the major reasons that they missed the Kentucky race so badly was the defect in their assumptive models.

Quite similar to the Global/cooling/warming/climate change modeling.

Two aspects of voter behaviour were missed by all Canadian polling. One was 'strategic,' in-the-booth, last-minute decisions, and the other was the demographics of extra voter turnout. Turfing Harper's government turned on that last-minute weighting of NDP versus Liberal votes. The break for Trudeau shifted on election day. In the lesser issue of 'new' voters, it was impossible to exactly predict how their preferences would break. As it turned out, they tilted Liberal by an unforeseen margin.

I can't come up with a good US example where 'voter turnout' assumptions were clearly the result of mischief and not mistake. I'd say the best-supported assumptions can yet go awry or be relatively invalid when trying to predict aggregate political behaviour. Projected turnout models are mostly based on past demographics, and ought be taken with a grain of salt, or at least a knowledge of the difficulties and error bars and limits of reliability.

What I do remember from 2012 was the surprise among Romney insiders. Private polling by that team showed a greater GOP turnout in key places than election day results. That suite of polling only 'nudged' Romney's expecations. Was it mischief? Nope.

I'll have to look at general 'conventional wisdom' and nudgy polling from Kentucky. Clearly partisan polling mischief is easy to suspect, harder to demonstrate.

As for the parallel to models used in climatology, polling of party and candidate preferences is just that. It is a sometime-fleeting subject-to-change sample of opinion, extrapolated from small numbers by large factors, with built-in defects of generalization from N to N^x. The defects of a given poll cannot be assigned to malicious motives or mischievous actions without strong evidence.

Maybe the models of climate processes perturbed by increased atmospheric CO2 are comparable to electoral models used by various interest groups in various soundings. I'd need to see some more argument to understand the analogy.

One place where political preferences/orientation and 'beliefs' in this or that model of climate change intersect is in the marked divergence of opinion between 'left' and 'right' in North America. Here's a sample from the most recent PEW soundings on climate change issues. Canada's left/right differences on these questions is less marked, but still apparent.

(and in a weird twist today, the Liberal left-ish government of Canada finds itself disappointed that the Obama administration has put the kibosh on KeystoneXL completion.)

[Selene]

hat I do remember from 2012 was the surprise among Romney insiders. Private polling by that team showed a greater GOP turnout in key places than election day results. That suite of polling only 'nudged' Romney's expecations. Was it mischief? Nope.

I'll have to look at general 'conventional wisdom' and nudgy polling from Kentucky. Clearly partisan polling mischief is easy to suspect, harder to demonstrate.

William:

I know you are not going to understand this.

Romney's consultants were loyal to their pocketbooks and they skewered the analysis to assume a higher turn out for the guy paying the bills.

The "poll" is now a political weapon to shape and "nudge" the electorate, public opinion and the candidate writing the checks.

A...