william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) William, Folks, Mr Trump, you have to be a little cautious with the Gravis folks...Cruz Spox Is Really Confused by Trump’s Veiled ‘Evangelicals from Cuba’ Attack ____________________Adam's cautious suspicion of the Gravis folks is bolstered by a story at Daily Kos, Gravis Marketing Exposed AND Eviscerated, by AnnetteK, from Monday Oct 15, 2012. In that story, further links lead to the 'evisceration,' in two parts, at the Democratic Underground forum:DU Exclusive: Gravis Marketing exposed as a fraud Part IGravis Marketing Exposed II. The Evisceration of Douglas Kaplan Edited December 31, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 My best prediction for the Republican nominee for POTUS: Trump.Peter shows why he is among the wise.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I have not had time to check in depth on them, however, these "suspicions" have been out there for a while...http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144688/-Gravis-Marketing-Exposed-AND-EvisceratedFriendly reminder my man, 20,078 posts I made it to the top three! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Anywho... for now I guess us Trump supporters will just have to content ourselves with the following polling crumbs from the tables of the enlightened: New #ReutersPoll. Thank you America! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/oETsjV3aR4— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 My best prediction for the Republican nominee for POTUS: Trump.Peter shows why he is among the wise. MichaelI predicted this too. Why wasn't I hailed as one of the Wise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 William, Folks, Mr Trump, you have to be a little cautious with the Gravis folks...Cruz Spox Is Really Confused by Trump’s Veiled ‘Evangelicals from Cuba’ Attack ____________________Adam's cautious suspicion of the Gravis folks is bolstered by a story at Daily Kos, Gravis Marketing Exposed AND Eviscerated, by AnnetteK, from Monday Oct 15, 2012. In that story, further links lead to the 'evisceration,' in two parts, at the Democratic Underground forum:DU Exclusive: Gravis Marketing exposed as a fraud Part IGravis Marketing Exposed II. The Evisceration of Douglas KaplanUgh. Watching Trump pander to "the evangelicals" like any other politician is sort of nauseating. By the look on his face, for him as much as us, me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I predicted this too. Why wasn't I hailed as one of the Wise? David,You are one of the wise, too.Ugh. Watching Trump pander...Er...Maybe I need to rethink that wise thing...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Here's some wisdom from where I live: THANK YOU ILLINOIS! Let's not forget to get family & friends- out to VOTE IN 2016! https://t.co/lg5kMbNLYK pic.twitter.com/dtMAsIq4cf— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2015 And don't forget the money shot with the baby (even if it is a little old). Especially for Xmas and New Year. HAPPY BIRTHDAY to my son, @DonaldJTrumpJr! Very proud of you! #TBT https://t.co/ULerCEOCGX pic.twitter.com/nbxPVdarJM— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2015 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Ugh. Watching Trump pander to "the evangelicals" like any other politician is sort of nauseating. By the look on his face, for him as much as us, me thinks. It is a weird clip, evanescent in the scheme of things, but the intent in Trump's remarks is clear: peel off some of Cruz's hard-ribbed and hard-gotten support from the cohort of evangelical caucus-goers. I have a small mental drawer for the things Trump has said about religion. They are almost all milk and apple pie and snooze and generic mouthwash and Ban Muslim Entry -- until he gets down to the differences between sects. So, in my drawer are the curious things Trump said about Adventists, essentially, "Seventh-Day Adventists, what the fuck is that? Huh? Ya know? I'm a Presbyterian." I clipped and drawered some Trump stumping -- on Cruz's claims to being truly evangelical, here from a WaPo report. Trump now calls himself an evangelical Evangelical Christians often play a major role in the Iowa caucuses and are aggressively wooed by presidential candidates. Trump has tried to appeal to deeply religious voters by handing out copies of his childhood confirmation photo, declaring the Bible the best book ever written and sharing personal stories about why he doesn't drink or smoke. Friday night he went one step further and declared: "I am an evangelical. I'm a Christian. I'm a Presbyterian." Cruz has also resonated with evangelicals, recently earning the endorsement of an influential leader of a conservative Christian group. Trump poked at this, making a vague reference to Cuba, the home country of Cruz's father. It shows some bizarre or genius political calculations when Trump makes reference to Cuba, Cruz, evangelicals. As informed readers know from Cruz's biography, Cruz's father is a wildly evangelical Dominionist nutcase. Cruz the younger 'came to the Lord' during a thrilling event in Houston, before graduating from a Baptist high school. Trump's point is not that there cannot be a tradition of evangelism in Cuba, because that is wrong and ignorant. Trump's point is not to doubt Cruz's religious faith, and it is not to disparage Cruz's father's faith, and it is not a stab at some vague Cuban mystery. It is just the politics of sleaze. "We're doing really well with the evangelicals. And, by the way and again, I do like Ted Cruz but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness. Its true. Not a lot come out. But I like him nevertheless. But I think were going to do great, and we are doing great with evangelicals." "To the best of my knowledge, not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, OK? Just remember that, OK? Just remember." Yeah, well, here is Ted Cruz at Liberty University, the biggest, baddest evangelical place in America, having announced his run. How did he get in there? Not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, OK? Just remember that at the caucus, Trump supporters. "And when I was three years old, my father decided he didn't want to be married anymore. And he didn't want a 3-year-old son. So he got on a plane and left Calgary and flew back to Texas to Houston. And he left us. Now, when he was in Houston, a colleague in the oil and gas business invited my father to come with him to Clay Road Baptist Church. And my father accepted that invitation; he went to Clay Road Baptist Church and he gave his life to Jesus, and he went and bought an airplane ticket and flew back to Calgary to rejoin my mother and to rejoin his son." "So when anyone asks is faith real, is a relationship with Jesus real, I can tell you, if it were not for my father giving his life to Christ, I would have been raised by a single mother without having my dad in the home." And just a reminder, again. A poll is a poll is a poll, and Donald Trump gets 100% of the Muslim preference in one of them. Edited December 31, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Here's some wisdom from where I live: MichaelI'm surprised there was any.--Brantkeep digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Ugh. Watching Trump pander... Er... Maybe I need to rethink that wise thing... Hey, at least David felt a reaction to Trump's sleaze about Cruz's religious bona fides, and reported it frankly. David's was 'ugh,' mine was WTF -- and those are the only two comments on that topic so far. Your interjection is more of a meta-comment on David's character. ... I'd love to hear your wise and considered words on Trump's remarks in the clip. ?POLL? Who will win Iowa on February 1st? Please retweet this so we can get as many votes from everyone!— Donald J. Trump (@The_Trump_Train) December 31, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 ... I'd love to hear your wise and considered words on Trump's remarks in the clip.<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>POLL Who will win Iowa on February 1st? Please retweet this so we can get as many votes from everyone!— Donald J. Trump (@The_Trump_Train) December 31, 2015William,I try not to opine about fake Trump accounts made to monetize CPA ads and so forth. (Always check the URL when in doubt.)Here is his real account if you are interested: Donald J. Trump.Notice the URL includes the word "real." He did it that way because this fake Trump account business has been around for awhile...For the record, though, the approach you posted--running his own public polls--is not his style of marketing.Wise and considered enough fer ye?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Your interjection is more of a meta-comment on David's character. William,Bullshit.It's called good-natured banter, hopefully among friends.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Subject: Trump's remarks in the clip, Fun. Dodge-ball. Wisdom. ... I'd love to hear your wise and considered words on Trump's remarks in the clip. I try not to opine about fake Trump accounts made to monetize CPA ads and so forth. (Always check the URL when in doubt.) [...] Wise and considered enough fer ye? I weighed in with some thoughts on the 'evangelical' remarks which I quoted and the latest of which were reproduced in a video extract. I found the remarks interesting, David found them 'ugh,' and I wondered if there was other opinion forthcoming. You tried not to opine about a tweet unrelated to any of the preceding. The tweet was cute, with an implied quip relating back to my remarks on polls, polls, polls -- the worst of the worst, Twitter polls. The tweet was absolutely unrelated to Ugh. 1) So, any chance you will tell us if we should feel Ugh or WTF about Trump's remarks? My underlying point was that remarks are memorable, if puzzling or sleazy. In the fullness of time, when the caucus tallies are transmitted late in the evening of February 1st, the deeper question will be answered. It doesn't matter exactly what Donald Trump says about dubious sects. I doesn't matter if he says he has Iowa's evangelicals in the bag. It also doesn't matter what Cruz says at the moment about his share of the evangelicals. The evangelical vote is important in the Iowa caucuses. It matters. It can push a contender into the prize zone. Will a Trump tactic like 'remember, folks, remember, not a whole lotta evangelicals outta Cuba' work in any way to get evangelical Trumpists to beat Cruz at the precincts? We shall see. Michael, I am sorry. I could have been clearer and simpler: what do you think about this Trump tactic to urge supporters to 'remember' Cruz's iffy evangelical credentials -- do you think it wise? Another irrelevant tweet: As Cruz Meets With Evangelical Pastors, Trump Questions Cuba's Christianity https://t.co/dwXn6B8lR8— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 30, 2015 So, David is wise to acknowledge a chance of at Trump win in Cleveland. But he is unwise to say "Ugh" to the clip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 So, any chance you will tell us if we should feel Ugh or WTF about Trump's remarks?. . .Michael, I am sorry. I could have been clearer and simpler: what do you think about this Trump tactic to urge supporters to 'remember' Cruz's iffy evangelical credentials -- do you think it wise?William,I couldn't possibly tell you what to feel, nor would I want to.As to the wisdom of Trump's election rhetoric, he's a bare-knuckles kind of guy and he wants to win. He likes Ted Cruz and I, personally, think Cruz is well placed to be Trump's VP, but Trump wants to win. So he slugs. Probably not as hard as he wants to because he likes Cruz.Tomorrow, everybody but the gotcha crowd will forget all this. Just like they no longer remember what Obama & Co. said about Bill and Hillary during the primaries.(Some of this has to be through inference because Obama and Hillary use proxies without their own names involved to communicate delicate political unpleasantness for CYA purposes. They are only forthcoming if their statements have been tested in focus groups.)I don't think wisdom has anything to do with it.So, David is wise to acknowledge a chance of at Trump win in Cleveland. But he is unwise to say "Ugh" to the clip?That's the way banter works. Always has. Always will. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Christians bad ... Muslims good...Another implied false dichotomy.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Christians bad ... Muslims good... Another implied false dichotomy. A... Adam, Or the contrary. There's actually a recent Trump tweet about that. "@SenSanders: I have a message for Donald Trump: No, we’re not going to hate Latinos, we’re not going to hate Muslims." I fully agree!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2015 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 The first New Years thought on Twitter from The Donald (a retweet): "@jallenaip: Hillary said she was in a "Fog of War" as explanation for the lies about Benghazi. No fog allowed in WH. Vote Trump POTUS!"— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2016 That's called high energy. Always on until the job is completed. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Here's our 12-step program to help you break your addiction to bullshit polls. https://t.co/PPYv96Bhzr— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Ha! Nate Silver hates Trump. He has since the beginning. Also, he has his own reputation to curate: The One Who Is Never Wrong About Presidential Elections. Staying No. 1 at the top over time comes with its own traps. Ask Ronda Rousey. I predict Trump is going to take Silver's championship belt from him just as decisively as Holly Holm did Ronda Rousey's. And Trump won't predict in words like Silver has to do. He'll do it in deeds. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Michael said "Staying No. 1 at the top over time comes with its own traps. Ask Ronda Rousey"Yes sir, Ronda fell into some trap...the trap of her adversary who floated like a butterfly and hit with the hammer of Thor.-J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 From Roger Stone's blog, the Stone Zone ... Bush's Gambit To Steal The Gop Nomination From The Donald Moving forward watch to see these four fronts play out: The corporate media and Insiders will promote Chris Christie. The corporate media and Insiders will continue pitting Rubio against Cruz. The corporate media and Insiders will continue propping up the viability of Jeb Bush. The corporate media and Insiders will continue attacking Trump with Alinsky tactics: Isolate, Ridicule and Marginalize. Just a Reminder, Trump's campaign is an insurgency. - The modern enemy of Wall Street is Main Street vulgarians. The enemy of the RNC and the lobbyist/consultant /donor class.It is not Democrats, it's Grassroots Conservatives, more vulgarians.The Republican Party, and the Republican media apparatus, view us as their enemy. We are the enemy they need to protect themselves from: [-- Stone quotes from "RNC/GOPe Rule Changes and How They Impact The 2016 Presidential Primary…" at The Conservative Treehouse, a très wonque place I have cited here before.] In 2014, the RNC approved selection rules that govern how each state's delegates are portioned out from the primaries. Under one of the changes, states holding their primaries between March 1 and March 14 will have their delegates doled out proportionately with election results, a change that will likely stymie a movement candidate. States that have primaries on or after March 15 will be winner-take-all states. That's important because another RNC rule change requires that a candidate must win a majority of delegates in eight or more states before his or her name may be presented for nomination at the 2016 Republican National Convention. With 18 GOP presidential candidates, for now, it will be that much harder for any candidate to win a majority in any state, let alone eight. Now, ask yourself, why would the RNC want to "stymie a movement candidate"? Who exactly does that benefit? Obviously, the "non-movement" candidate, ie "the turtle". Isn't the entire reason for campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc. to make a movement/momentum? In addition Rule #40 changed in 2014 from previously five needed state wins, to a newer threshold of eight (8): [-- Stone quotes from a US News and World report article] Officially, it's Rule 40 in the RNC handbook and it states that any candidate for president "shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states" before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention. Again, ask yourself who does this benefit? A candidate can win seven states outright, and still not have their name presented for nomination? These rules were made/affirmed in 2014 - Who or what exactly was the GOP concerned about blocking in 2016 that would necessitate such rules? When combined with other rule changes you can clearly identify a consolidation of power within the RNC apparatus intentionally constructed to stop the candidate of the GRASSROOTS from achieving victory. Think 1976 - The same GOP establishment apparatus screwed Ronald Reagan out of the nomination with the use of delegates at the convention. The GOP establishment gave the nomination to Gerald Ford knowing that he would lose to Carter.In '76 the GOP establishment were OK losing to Carter. In 2015 the same GOPe is just as OK losing the 2016 race to Hillary Clinton if needed. They still retain power. It buys them 4 more years. Reading the wonkier of the conservative, Christian, GOP blogs and commentary sites, there is are multiple bloc analyses trying to figure out how Christian-values folks are going to render out in initial Iowa and down the line. In Iowa, of course, evangelical-slash-Christian caucus votes are crucial to that 'momentum' odour on February 2nd, when the entire GOP wonk class will go into overdrive. To return to the earlier poll wonk story from 538.com -- from "Harry's Guide to the 2016 Election Polls," here's a graphic summation. For those who don't already understand where we can be hornswoggled, the story is brief and effective in laying out useful cautions -- it is the fruit of collaboration in a 'consumer handbook'. Since polls are polls are polls, these guidelines could apply to all: -- I kind of get the feeling that somebody 'hates' Nate Silver. I've polled both Silver and Enten on the matter of hatred for Trump ruling the roost at Silver's business. In the meantime I remember what the touts and the windbags were saying about the match between Brazeau and Trudeau. Look at the guy. Look at the other guy. And ... biff bam boom. -- back, briefly, to polls and the 12 Steps suggested above. It makes sense that Nate Silver 'hates' Donald Trump, in that, well, he is Democratic in orientation. In that same class are of course additional Trump Haters, from the GOP factions and from beyond. So, in that sense, yeah. Harry Enten and collaborators on the Twelve Steps hate Trump if not America. And, if Nate and his colleagues hate Trump, fuck anything that drops from their holes, right? I may be in the class of "Hates Donald Trump," because, like Nate and his wonkfest, I offer cautions to those getting ahead of themselves. Plus I am Canadian and let's face it, Canadians Hate America. Maybe we could get to a measurement of just how much hate are in these various hearts, but that will probably have to wait. Who is working on a Hate Index? In the meantime, it might be provisionally wise to consider much of what oozes out of 538 as hate speech, though not perhaps including everything, like their ranking system for polling firms, which is in a neat, interactive-crosstabs spreadsheet form. I can somewhat confidently say the haters at 538 have a hate on for the folks in the Banned Pollster column, but beyond that, not so much. Better minds than me can weigh in on that while I eat New Year Ham and Waffles. I might add that all the 12 Steps Hate Trump. Every last one. Except for Number Seven, who sounds suspiciously like a Trump Lover. I just put up a tweet with embedded poll, reaching out to the haters at 538. I didn't have room for MSK's handle, which by the way is @mikellyusabr. I know there are at least three Twitter users here. I hope for a fun turnout in the next 24 hours. I am remembering the lone Muslim in the WND poll. His vote turned into 100% Trump winning! Sweeping the minority votes. Help the numbers decide. A riposte to Harry's 12 Steps: "@NateSilver538 Hates Donald Trump" @forecasterenten https://t.co/o2osgqZtXJ— William Scott Scherk (@wsscherk) January 1, 2016 To return to the broad mandate of this Stumping thread, I have been spending some time with the video of his recent barnburner in Council Bluffs, re-playing it to discover more about his policies, tactics and rhetoric. I am coming to understand one strain of the 'ban Muslim entry until we figure things out' proposal. Trump provided some justification in the speech. Around this quote was a fair bit on Syria and his plans. Any Syrians who have got to American soil so far, evading patriotic governors, they are going back.Maybe just send them North? Our first few flights from Jordan and Lebanon were chock-full of Christians, mainly Armenian-Syrians giving up on their homeland -- but we don't set a bar over sect or faith. If Trump America doesn't like the mix of Sunni/Shia/Christian/Druze/Kurds dealt into your refugee settlement system, let Canada have their files, and we will see if we can make room for them up here. We expect the USA equivalent of a half million Syrians over the next year and a bit. We may have room for some of the estimated ten thousand who are expected to settle in, terrorize, and steal jobs before Trump takes back 1600 from America Haters. The quote is from the Iowa's top Trump-hate daily, The Register: “We take only the Muslims,” he said. “And you know what? Hey, that’s the way it is. OK? But we don’t take Christians. Now the Christians, they’re all in trouble over there. It’s a hellhole. The Christians are having their heads cut off. They’re having their heads – we don’t take the Christians. And if you’re Christian it’s almost impossible to get into this country. But if you’re Muslim you can come in.” [link to Des Moines register story on the refugee aspect of the Trump stump appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) There was too much HTML to fiddle with in the MF just above. so I will re-post the Youtube video of Trump barnstorming in Council Bluffs. If you don't know what Trump does on the stump, give this one a go. It is only several days old. This is the real thing.Listen to Trump's talk of love starting around 54:00 or so. Edited January 1, 2016 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 If you don't know what Trump does on the stump, give this one a go. It is only several days old. This is the real thing.Listen to Trump's talk of love starting around 54:00 or so.William,Magnificent!Thank you.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Polling the way the media currently does it, essentially, is based on the same kind of suspense as in game shows. The purpose is so the media can get and keep eyeballs.As dopamine spurts from anticipation in the viewer's head, his or her eyeballs are directed at the unknown but anticipated outcome. And there are plenty of pundits on 24/7 to talk about nothing but that.Trump supporters know all about this, though, even though they may not formally know much about neurochemicals.They do know that Trump uses polls--or better, talking about polls constantly--to get the media to play Let's Make a Deal. It's a way to keep the media and general public's dopamine/eyeball thing trained on him.Trump supporters also know he isn't really playing Let's Make a Deal.He's playing The Art of the Deal.Trump supporters want serotonin more than dopamine at this stage.Dopamine is the neurochemical allied to anticipation of a reward. Serotonin is the neurochemical allied to social dominance. Don't think Trump himself doesn't know this stuff, neurochemical names and all.Oddly enough, I don't think the professional pollsters know much about neurochemistry and persuasion. I listened to Harry Enton's superior-sounding-guru-like audio in William's link above and he didn't seem to have a clue about it. In fact, he sounded like a person perfectly focussed on the details of nonessentials--basically mentioning in high-expert-tone this and that detail about polls in response to the lady, then conveying the general message that polls are all full of shit. And that's a hell of a position for a professional poll analyst. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now