Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 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.And don't think the establishment Republicans and lefties are unaware of this.The bitch-fest already started.Look at today's gem from Forbes:Donald Trump’s SNL hosting gig is a new low in U.S. politicsYou don't need to read the article. The title says it all.In other words, the underlying message of the article is nobody can keep Trump from SNL (so far) and his SNL appearance will result in a bump in the number of his adherents, bitch bitch bitch low-class low-class low-class tacky tacky tacky... From the bitching alone, the political media machine people thinks that is so unfair to long-suffering little them (although they say it is unfair to the other candidates). They want to be the ones to manipulate public perception, especially with young people, not let some damn outsider do it.And what's worse, it's the commercial side of the media that's beating them just as badly as Trump is. That makes it doubly unfair, poor things...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The next policy position just came in.From Trump's site:VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REFORMS THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAINNow he has four up:Veterans Administration ReformsTax ReformSecond Amendment RightsImmigration ReformMichael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I was trying to imagine a debate between Hillary and Donald. How would he do? It would be a big top show if Donald has his way, but the substance would be with Hillary. As of now. I do think volition plays into the rest of the campaign, not just demographics and mainstream press coverage. Yet when I think of media image, self image, and projected image I don't know who fairs worse, Trump or Clinton. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Peter, Don't you worry your pretty little head about how The Donald will perform. If you know marketing and public speaking at all, you will see how much he knows to say the following: Jeb's new slogan - "Jeb can fix it". I never thought of Jeb as a crook! Stupid message, the word "fix" is not a good one to use in politics!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2015 As to substance, The Donald will kill Hillary on her weaknesses. He knows it, too, because he knows how. Also, his zingers in marketing-and-persuasion-land are called "linguistic kill shots." See below for a doozy he is preparing for Hillary: Trump Engineers a Clinton Linguistic Kill Shotby Scott AdamsAugust 31st Scott Adams blog From the article: Trump’s label will stick because he knows the public is not following the details of Clinton’s server security issue. They just have some general sense of distrust for all things Clinton. Trump put a label on that general distrust: “Major security risk.” And remember how I told you in a prior post that “risk” is the magic kill word that brought supply-side economics to its knees in the Clinton/Dole election cycle? “Security risk” is an engineered, linguistic kill shot. . . . A key to making a linguistic kill shot stick is that you have to pick a fresh label that doesn’t come with any baggage. If you call someone a liberal, the other side loves it, and the word is a bit ragged and empty in 2015. But if you call Bush “low-energy” you have a fresh field. No one ever used that label for a candidate. It sticks because the label had no baggage to bring with it. Likewise, “major security risk” is a label no candidate ever had to fend off. It is fresh and sticky. And engineered. Still think Trump is winging it? See more about linguistic kill shots here and here (where I believe Trump's kill shot on Carly resulted in the monkeyshines of The View as it got into their subconscious, see here). Look what he says about how Jeb handled Marco Rubio in the first tweet in this post, where he says, "I never thought of Jeb as a crook! Stupid message..." (btw - There is more to that message than normal. For example, what other establishment Republican comes to mind with the word crook? Hint: "I'm not a crook." And Trump anchors the vibes of this to both Jeb and Marco, in addition to "stupid message" as a form of icing.) But as Adams pointed out (see here), Marco is turning quite savvy on using kill shots himself. So The Donald is beta-testing right now: Marco Rubio will not win. Weak on illegal immigration, strong on amnesty and has the appearance to killers of the world as a "lightweight".— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2015 If Jeb Bush were more competent he could not have lost the skirmish with Marco in the debate. BAD facts for Marco if properly delivered!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2015 I'm not sure "lightweight" will stick since it comes with a political load, but with "killers" and "lightweight" in Trump's mind about Rubio, I have little doubt a devastating zinger that captures both will come soon. (That "water" zinger was pretty funny, that is Trump hammers that Rubio is thirsty and sweats a lot because he drinks water water water all the time, and it did not come with political baggage, but that kill shot is not too effective in undermining Rubio's political appeal. So Trump will need a new one.) Like I said, don't you worry your pretty little head about a debate between Trump and Clinton. She is nobody's fool on manipulating substance, but he is a master at finding the crack that makes substance irrelevant to the majority of the public in a debate. And, if you look on his website, he is creating a lot of easily-understood policy substance in addition to the substance of his many past achievements. So he's covered substance-wise in the minds of people who look (whether they agree with his policies or not). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) I am reminded of Stephen Harper's team's kill shot "Justin. He's just not ready." It was rooted in real voter doubt about Justin Trudeau's slim CV. It captured that doubt in a well-crafted meme. It played very well in focus groups. I was seen as unanswerable, and bound to be devastating.Two months later Harper was slumming with Rob Ford, trying to bleed some votes his way. Days later, the final shots were delivered one by one, by the ballot.I am going to build a Trump kill shot calculus against Clinton later on, after he vanquishes his GOP rivals.As for the linguistic treat, one can take the label and slap it on a particular meme at a particular time, but it might not be apt. One may pull off a kill shot expertly, but the 'death' may not be immediately apparent -- the field of contest is already a Wild West of zinging, pinging, ricochets, cracks and booms. I will tend to think about 'kill shots' as a road too far right now, and substitute 'wounding' in my mind ...Can Trump's lively and inventive mind winnow down public doubt into a few phrases that sing like a bullet, that zing, that sting Clinton? Quite probably yes. Will his shots wound Clinton more than all shots taken during years in the public spotlight? That is a question for me, arguable.It might be my preference that Clinton not win the Democratic nomination and it may be against my preference that the Clintons move back into the White House, but I got to say that the lady is not dead yet. Let's keep ammunition fresh and fiercely engage the machine that runs Clinton. Let me not allow my druthers to rule my grasp on political reality.If it were possible to call the races right now to give us Donald v Hillary, I would answer yes -- Clinton will have never been up against a relentless critic like Trump in a campaign, and public trust is her weak knee. One sure knee shot could disable her, in a perfect Donald world. He could very well thematically slaughter her in a presidential contest one on one. He may perfectly lead those who find her wanting as a 'candidate/apprentice' and so treat her to scorn and coordinated, well-researched 'wounding' shots. Enough to win the contest. The fact that she was at State can be undercut deeply by persistent memes indicating her riskiness as a CommanderI will just say, this is in the future. We Canadians could have six more elections by the time you guys get to the final poll. It is too early to call anything. Those tremendously invested in a candidate may well have some tears ahead, despite the hope and excitement of love.We could hope that Trump does not 'shoot to kill' in his current GOP fight, if only because those wounds might afflict the eventual winner in Cleveland next summer should it not be him. Keep some of the most deadly ammunition for the greater two-way fight, don't shoot all your rivals dead in the eyes of voters, just in case ... Other than that, I am glad Trump is in the race for the long-haul. There is no reform possible in your institutions except by bold, unilateral, popular exercise of power. There is a pent-up longing for reform, or at least a longing for a simpler, leaner, tougher, meaner, smarter USA, in DC and everywhere. Dissatisfaction in America crosses party lines. A bold new stance for the country inside and out -- tap the hunger and corral its power adroitly and you may be in the Oval Office, where you get a chance to ride the mighty beast.In our country the Gingrichian reforms came under both Liberal and Conservative governments. Our constitution and bill of rights are young compared to yours, we are still building the institutions of the 21st century. You need a greater, more dynamic force to turn your ship from its wrong path. Our system is more nimble. So, I do wish good luck to those who want dramatic change in America. It will need a great concerted effort. Unify the GOP next July and you are halfway there.All these mere opinions from my side of our border. While we see how crazy-ass liberal our new guy will go. He says, "sunny ways" typify the Canadian experience, that our best days are to come. In its killing efficiency, that message found its mark, and translated to marks on the ballot. Everybody wants things to be great again, full of optimism and purpose.Which makes me want to segue to this guy and that time, and wonder who can best launch the memes that will 'kill' the Clinton family machine. Edited November 2, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 WSS said: Dissatisfaction in America crosses party lines.Democrats are united, confident, almost smug. I don't see anyone stopping Hillary, certainly not Trump, who the Republican Party can't nominate even if he wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, which he won't. Chris Christie seems likely to be nominated but Christie will fare poorly debating Hillary -- a loud fat man insulting an attractive well-dressed lady.I think the Republicans are doomed in 2016. Knocking out establishment stalwarts Perry and Bush leaves Christie and Kasich, neither of whom can carry their home state as prospective nominee. Hillary has a lock on New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Michigan and Ohio. Barack Obama won Florida twice. He beat Romney by a 2-1 margin of electoral college votes in 2012, more than 2-1 against McCain in 2008. Nothing has changed.Hillary is going to win. The Free Shit Army will not vote Republican.“Since 1980, the single best predictor of a party’s nominee is the number of endorsements from party elites — elected officials and prominent past party leaders — in the months before primaries begin,” as the political scientist Lynn Vavreck put it. Why? Political elites have a better sense of which candidates can endure a long campaign, and they can influence voters and donors by praising or criticizing candidates. One distinguishing feature of the 2016 cycle is how few top Republicans have endorsed any candidate so far — Jeb Bush has received endorsements from less than 10 percent of Republican senators, representatives and governors, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 60 percent of Democratic officials. [New York Times] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 William,The way Scott Adams explains it, he is a little too top-down with his idea of linguistic kill shots, albeit he is accurate about what they look like and their deadly effects.Here's the deal. Marketing, persuasion, propaganda, even memes used as kill shots (hell, memes in general) don't exist as a single self-contained bullet. There is a lot of pressure built up before any of this is even on the public radar. All public persuasion stuff that becomes effective takes advantage of that pressure.Other similar attempts or fancy phrases might be more clever, follow mathematical rules of precise construction, be funny or snarky as hell, be based on truth, have roots in religion (ancient or socialistic/technocratic), use heuristics and cognitive biases galore, etc., but if they do not hit the pressure-containing hull at the right crack, they simply bounce off.Here's an example of how this works by analogy from direct sales marketing.An MLM marketer I like (albeit I would never buy anything from him ), Mark Hoverson, once gave a speech about persuasion tactics. He illustrated his point by saying he was wearing underwear that cost $265 a pair (that was the price if I remember correctly).Then he said this might appear ridiculous. Who would pay that price for a single pair of underwear? But what if he said that there was only one kind of cotton in the world that met the standards of that garment and it came from a mountain region deep in India? And that a cutting-edge health enhancer for male sweat glands had been soaked into the fibers? And that not one, not two, but three top fashion designers had been consulted before settling on the final design? And that 500--and only 500--of these underwear shorts were made in a single year and not just anyone could buy them? That there was a secret elite group he belonged to and these garments were only sold to them, so owning and wearing one was proof of membership in this secret organization? And he went on, but my memory falters. (Alas, the video is nowhere to be found anymore.)After a while, he asked, "How ridiculous does the price sound now?"If you allowed yourself to get carried along and caught up in imagining what he was saying, now $265 sounded cheap. Then he explained he did this by stacking. He said imagine a seesaw with a pot of money on the seat at the far end, which was on the ground. Then he said on your side, put a technique on the seat, then another, then another, and so on. Suddenly the weight of the stack makes the seesaw start balancing out. Then you keep stacking until the other side of the seesaw is totally in the air and the pot of money slides down into your arms.A single tactic hardly ever works. It only works in a stack.That is how the linguistic kill show works, too, except the stack is negative (meaning causes cognitive dissonance instead of tickling cognitive biases), and not made by the shooter. In the case of Hillary, Trump has not been the one stacking. Her record as Secretary of State, the constant attacks in the mainstream media, her money monkeyshines, her many cases of indisputable public dishonesty, even her quack-like voice, and so on is the pressure (the stack).Nor is he receiving anything once the seesaw gets high enough. The public, though, gets an idea planted in their heads that undermines the public image his target tries to project--the pressurized hull.Trump is extremely good at detecting where the pressure is, finding the crack in that hull, then launching the blow that breaks it open. Without the pressure and enough of it to make a crack, the kill shot is about as effective as a BB gun shooting at a charging elephant.The good thing about politicians is that they always have a lot of pressure built up.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Meanwhile, back at the farm... Now that Iran ripped us off by making one of the best deals of any kind in history, they have just moved to block any imports from the U.S.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 2, 2015 Drip... drip... drip... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Hillary is going to win. The Free Shit Army will not vote Republican.“Since 1980, the single best predictor of a party’s nominee is the number of endorsements from party elites — elected officials and prominent past party leaders — in the months before primaries begin,” as the political scientist Lynn Vavreck put it. Why? Political elites have a better sense of which candidates can endure a long campaign, and they can influence voters and donors by praising or criticizing candidates. One distinguishing feature of the 2016 cycle is how few top Republicans have endorsed any candidate so far — Jeb Bush has received endorsements from less than 10 percent of Republican senators, representatives and governors, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 60 percent of Democratic officials. [New York Times]Evita means business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Just so people understand the kerfuffle re John Oliver, here it is in a nutshell:Donald Trump says ‘no thanks’ to John Oliver, but ‘Last Week Tonight’ host says mogul was never invitedby Dylan StablefordNovember 2, 2015Yahoo PoliticsSomething is obvious to me. Oliver would love the ratings a Trump involvement would bring, so he differentiated himself from everyone else by saying he had no interest in Trump. There was a problem, though. It got a little press, but nobody cared much. Trump, from his end, always on the lookout for media opportunities, liked the idea of presence before Oliver's audience for potential adherents. So he inflamed it a little by tweeting that Oliver's people called him and he said, "No thanks."Now we have a great media story: Which one is a liar, Oliver or Trump? Everyone is talking about it.But look at the result. Both Oliver and Trump are getting what they want from the press, that is lots of exposure.So how will this play out?If I were a betting man, I would bet the following. After all the press juice has been squeezed out of the incident, it will come out that an employee, associate, friend, etc., of Oliver called Trump's people "without Oliver knowing about it."Bingo.Neither are liars, the press coverage goes away with closure in the public mind and both Oliver and Trump take higher ratings to the bank.(For Oliver fans, I know it is disillusioning, but "Yes, Virginia, there is an Oliver the marketer." )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Donald Trump for President is like a rubber blow up doll for sex.--BrantI'm not saying this is true only it's too good not to say it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Chris Christie seems likely to be nominated... Based on what?!!! ...but Christie will fare poorly debating Hillary -- a loud fat man insulting an attractive well-dressed lady. You find Hillary to be "attractive" and "well-dressed"?!!! Eeeesh! We've definitely got some differences in aesthetic tastes. You've got a thing for stovepipe cankles and JCP pantsuits, eh? Oh, well, to each their own. The Free Shit Army will not vote Republican. And that's why the Republican party should stop trying to win the Free Shit Army vote by nominating Rinos. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Christie has no chance.Trump has a viable wild card status, still.Rubio has policied himself out.Carly might get it.Bush is presidential candidate pathetic.Kaisch is nothing to be seen.Cruz is the smartest and strongest and I suspect the most neocon.Huckabee and Paul are done.Carson is still swimming but may be too far out from shore.____________________Biden will be bidden when Clinton gets hidden--health or threatened indictment.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Biden will be bidden when Clinton gets hiddenBrant,Do I detect an inner poet trying to break loose?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 ...but Christie will fare poorly debating Hillary -- a loud fat man insulting an attractive well-dressed lady.You find Hillary to be "attractive" and "well-dressed"?!!! Eeeesh! We've definitely got some differences in aesthetic tastes. You've got a thing for stovepipe cankles and JCP pantsuits, eh? Oh, well, to each their own. JC'mon, she is such a pretty bitch oops witch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Back at the Megyn farm: .@megynkelly used this poll (nobody else did) when I was down—wonder if she’ll use it now that I’m up? https://t.co/wEhqux6Ss8— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 2, 2015 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 It is now approximately 100 days until Iowa...Now is the time to turn away from the "national polls" and focus on the States in sequence:Iowa - a caucus statePPP's newest Iowa poll finds a tight race on the Republican side in the state with Donald Trump at 22%, Ben Carson at 21%, Ted Cruz at 14%, Marco Rubio at 10%, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal each at 6%, and Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina each at 5%. Polling further back are Chris Christie at 3%, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum each at 2%, Lindsey Graham with less than 1%, and Jim Gilmore and George Pataki each with no supporters.http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 It's late. I want to see the Bloomberg Politics, "WITH ALL DUE RESPECT" interview with Donald Trump that aired today, but I'm too tired. So I'm posting this to see later. For those who like Trump's interviews, enjoy: btw - There is an interview I did see with Colin Cowherd (sports radio celebrity). This one was interesting because Trump said Oliver's people had called several times, but was never accepted, not because he had anything against Oliver. He didn't know that much about him and he can't accept all invitations. When Oliver said on a late night show that he wasn't interested at all in Trump for anything, Trump said it was a lie so he called him out on it. There ya' go, a double feature. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The following WaPo article is OK (not great), but when I saw the headline, I thought of our future crow-eaters:You might think Donald Trump can’t win. But GOP voters disagree.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) It is too early to call anything. Ditto.WSS said: Dissatisfaction in America crosses party lines.Democrats are united, confident, almost smug. I don't see anyone stopping Hillary, certainly not Trump, who the Republican Party can't nominate even if he wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, which he won't. Chris Christie seems likely to be nominated but Christie will fare poorly debating Hillary -- a loud fat man insulting an attractive well-dressed lady.I doubt Christie will get anywhere near the nomination. Trump's potency as a candidate has not been extinguished. I don't know if Democrats are anywhere near united except behind Clinton 2016. As for a putative match-up, one can consider attractiveness, but it is like beer goggles -- it depends on one's filters. A Wolf DeVoon might judge her looks by standard means of proportion: her face is more 'beautiful' or ordered than a comparatively 'average' sixty-seven year-old. Another might judge Clinton's electability by her looks, or not. It's just that everyone knows what she looks like. Only Trump could make 'tired' 'old' 'unhealthy' 'puffy' 'bloated' 'hag-faced' land on Clinton, but then he is just as old and haggard as she is, and he cannot wear makeup to even out his bags and wattles.-- on the whole, you might possibly be right that Clinton will be triumphant next November, but multiple factors will have led to that triumph, from bloc-voting through demographics to get-out-the-vote machinery, not to mention the thousands of events and points of electoral battle from now till then. As for dissatisfaction, I was merely pointing out that Americans are not happy with the political institutions they are saddled with. Candidates face angry, dissatisfied electorate Almost a year out from Election Day 2016, Americans are angry and dissatisfied with politics and with the nation’s direction, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. To your quote from a New York Times article which spoke of the predictive power of party elite and party office-holders' endorsements, "One distinguishing feature of the 2016 cycle is how few top Republicans have endorsed any candidate so far — Jeb Bush has received endorsements from less than 10 percent of Republican senators, representatives and governors, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 60 percent of Democratic officials."See the tabulation at FiveThirtyEight.com's "The Endorsement Primary." It supports your take and the NYT estimation. Trump has yet to receive an endorsement.Christie has no chance.Trump has a viable wild card status, still.Rubio has policied himself out.Can you expand a bit on Rubio policies that effectively deal him out of the race? I imagine you mean in the long run to next July, not his present or transient appeal. Here's a pure opinion graphic from the Washington Examiner's "Power Rankings" today. What do you know that the Examiner wonks don't?It is now approximately 100 days until Iowa...Now is the time to turn away from the "national polls" and focus on the States in sequence:One hundred days. A whole lot of campaigning, but not only in Iowa. If you turn away from looking at, discussing, weighting polls from the national races, it doesn't mean the GOP voters and the various media claques will also avert their gaze and calculations. But, of course, if you are just focusing your own eyes on races one by one, as they come, maybe its not a bad idea.Back to ugly for a moment. When I put on Objectivish and GOP goggles, I don't see ugly Clinton except as she is a demonic political force. Demons can be conventionally 'attractive.' It's all in the ideology, not in the face. Mrs Roosevelt may have been conventionally ugly, but her dog-face and fatty calves and ankles were the least important aspects of her evil, as calculated by a Randian, at least to my mind. Here she is artfully stripped of her make-up and gilding and morphed with the Donald. Would you trust this person to drive your truck? Edited November 3, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Now that hurt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) It is now approximately 100 days until Iowa...Now is the time to turn away from the "national polls" and focus on the States in sequence:One hundred days. A whole lot of campaigning, but not only in Iowa. If you turn away from looking at, discussing, weighting polls from the national races, it doesn't mean the GOP voters and the various media claques will also avert their gaze and calculations. But, of course, if you are just focusing your own eyes on races one by one, as they come, maybe its not a bad idea.William:I am not just focusing on races one by one.I am imparting how a professional analyzes polls at this point in the cycle.National polls are primarily name IDs at this point in time.Additionally, I said take the polls in the states in sequence meaning Iowa first on February 1st, 2016, then N.H., February 9th, 2016 and then a real test of organizational get out the vote test in significantly different electorates occurs on February 20th, and 23rd, 2016 in South Carolina and Nevada (caucus).Followed quickly on March 1st, 2016 by Super Tuesday where most of the non-top five (5) will be eliminated.Alabama, Alaska (GOP), Arkansas, Colorado caucuses, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.A... Edited November 3, 2015 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah is on board with Donald: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"<a href="https://twitter.com/Mr_Holtzworth">@Mr_Holtzworth</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> Sarah Palin Defends Donald Trump's Immigration Plan On Fox News <a href="https://t.co/IhaCiY07US">https://t.co/IhaCiY07US</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/YouTube">@YouTube</a>"</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href=" 4, 2015</a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah is on board with Donald: MichaelYeah Michael, she is so dumb that she just handled 6 minutes with an experienced and credible interviewer and brilliantly maneuvered every plus for The Donald and threw down the gauntlet to all the other Republicans who have not laid out as many specifics as The Donald, particularly on the core issue of immigration and the wall.Then she nailed the establishment and bound up The Donald in a nice package.Handled Greta with a smile and confidence.Yeah she is a real bimbo that lady!If it wasn't for that squeaky voice, she would be another nice VP pick.Hell, he might get Condi Rice to be VP and knock the crap out of Evita.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Very nice graphics on this Reuter's poll...http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/27% "Wouldn't vote" - this is not explained with any detail - should be in the methodological explanation section of the poll. 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