If "The TRUMP ARMY" Comes Out Full Force Tomorrow. Bye Bye Hillary!!!

[Uncensored2008]

Who else had huge crowds during the primaries???
Bernie something or other...
I forget his name at the moment....

heh hheh

And what will those Bernie supporters do?

Sit home and smoke pot....

Trump supporters will vote.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Every party typically gets hit in off year elections. The founders set it up that the president who wins gets to nominate. The Founders may not have foreseen parties, but that's the way it's set up. And the reason is pretty clear. Presidents come and go, but Justices tend to last a long time. So it's a check against overwhelming populism. The gop's position on not confirming Garland is wrong, as a matter of principle.

I totally disagree, but I will protect with my dying breath your Constitutional right to be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

If all those people that went to the Trump events of the last 15 or so months, vote,,and along with the millions who had to wait outside the arenas......Trump Wins!!!

And what are the average size crowds for Hillary and Tim?

If they were smart enough/not afraid to register to vote Trump would have no problem. They are stupid and they are more about being amused than engaged.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump emboldened the Democrat ruling class.
And because of it, we're going to get a Democrat President, probably a Democrat Senate, and a liberal Supreme Court.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Trump EXPOSED the ruling classes of both parties.

 

[bodecea]

[hmmmmm . . . . I thought you douche bags like McCain and Romney. You keep telling us that's the kind of guy we should have nominated.

You nominated a loser.

He was losing against Clinton during the primaries, and he's losing now.

But you Orange Jesus worshipers closed your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears, wouldn't listen, and nominated the guy who consistently was the worst candidate against Clinton. All the other candidates did better than Trump against Clinton.

Now, he's going to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever to run for the Presidency - other than him, of course - a woman who has serious ethical and possibly legal issues.

That's how bad Trump is.

So you guys don't really give a shit about Clinton winning. You were more interested in settling scores in the Republican Party.

Nice way to change the subject. Were McCain and Romney the kind of candidate we should nominate, or were they "losers," as you described them?

Against H. Clinton either one would have won...and then the GOP would get to pick SCOTUS nominees. Now..............?

That's true, but I don't think either could have beating Trump in the primaries. (A younger McCain might have chewed off Trump's head onstage in a debate, but that's another matter)

I'm an American more than I am partisan about any issue ... unless it involves something beyond question constitutional like equal protection. The dems have won the popular vote (Perot I know) in 5 of the last 6, and 2004 was decided on terror, so imo they deserve to control the scotus. To me the interesting question is whether Trump will effectively change the gop to make it a more populist party.

"I don't think either could have beating Drumpf in the primaries" Well, that's on the GOP voter then.

 

[bodecea]

Trump emboldened the Democrat ruling class.
And because of it, we're going to get a Democrat President, probably a Democrat Senate, and a liberal Supreme Court.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Trump EXPOSED the ruling classes of both parties.

 

[Slade3200]

I just think you overestimate the power of word of mouth, who people vote for is based on their beliefs, not what a friend tells them. Plus I don't think everybody at trump rally's are going to vote for trump, many are just checking out the show. Also, if you add Hillary plus her serrogates attendees they are getting the same numbers if not more when compared to just Trump and pence. Plus they have a much bigger ground game that gets out the vote... add all that together and you have a very tight race and advantage Clinton when considering the polls and electoral map

Yeah, I dont know of any formal studies done, just examples like Gibsons marketing Passion of the Christ.

The media downplays or ignores the impact of Word of Mouth because they sell advertising and Word of mouth topics in essence undercut their cash flow.

But it is very effective and I recall that the whole phenomena is often referred to as a "social epidemic"

How Ideas Spread [repost]

four key principles that make information more memorable;
why word of mouth is more than 10 times as powerful as traditional advertising;
how triggers in the environment can influence everything from what we buy to how we vote;
which types of sales messaging drives consumers to act; and
why your looser social ties are more likely to help you find a job than closer ones.

Create Predictably Viral Word of Mouth Campaigns - Synerzip

This posting explores how an advertiser can virally spread a message by leveraging laws of social epidemics extolled in the highly acclaimed book- “Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell . The book was written before social networks like Facebook and Twitter came into existence. Now it has become much easier to spread social epidemics or build up popularity of a concept by spreading “word of mouth” using social media. Towards the end, this posting explores how we can test a message on a small slice of the target population or cohort and create a predictably viral word of mouth campaign.

I'm in the marketing business and agree with much of what you say about word of mouth, however that applies to normal consumer products and services. People want to know which doctor their friends recommend or which TV has the best picture, which movie to go see, etc a recommendation from a friend goes a long way with that stuff. Voting is a different game. While I do recognize an effectiveness of word of mouth, it can also be very polarizing as it is a personal choice that many are passionate about. Both sides of this race want a landslide but reality is that we are in a close race and Clinton has an advantage. To say a Clinton victory means fraud before the votes are cast is a foolish statement. To say Trump has no chance of winning is also a foolish statement.

Yeah, the techniques that make Word of Mouth work well are polarizing as Trump "rebranding" of his opponents illustrate. Hell, only now Cruz is campaigning for him and he is still butt hurt over the whole primary thingy.

However, it does work and it goes around the establishment media very effectively.

Trump thought through this campaign very well, way ahead of time, and no one will give the guy any credit for his astonishing success in a game run by experts, dirty tricks and hatchet men.

BTW, we dont know the "reality" of what is going to happen because of the Brexit Factor. It is hilarious to hear pollsters object that they find no evidence of Brexit in their polling when THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, duh! roflmao

I have no hesitation to compliment Trump on an amazingly effective campaign. He brought many issues to light and gave a voice to the outraged Americans have towards Washington. I just know that he is absolutely the wrong person to win the whitehouse. He should be no where near it.

 

[bendog]

Every party typically gets hit in off year elections. The founders set it up that the president who wins gets to nominate. The Founders may not have foreseen parties, but that's the way it's set up. And the reason is pretty clear. Presidents come and go, but Justices tend to last a long time. So it's a check against overwhelming populism. The gop's position on not confirming Garland is wrong, as a matter of principle.

I totally disagree, but I will protect with my dying breath your Constitutional right to be wrong.

Well, from 1968 to 1988, the gop won every presidential election, and as a result nominated 7 out of the 9 sitting judges by 1992. It's the way it goes. And there were disputes. Bork was rejected, and honestly he was a judicial lightenrod for criticism from the legal community. Two of Nixon's nominees were rejected because they had a taint of Jim Crowe. Thomas had his problems as well, deserved or not, no one can know. And the dems did confirm Kennedy in Reagan's last year.

Slick nominated two. W nominated two. The gop senate decided Obama would only be allowed to have two confirmed. And here we are.

Easily a dem Senate could have decided not to take up Kennedy. And Poppy would not have been elected unless Gary Hart imploded. So, both parties should be very wary about playing politics in choosing to not consider a nomination of a judge with a record of just leaning in either direction. There needs to be something way out of line if he/she is not given a fair vote.

 

[bripat9643]

[hmmmmm . . . . I thought you douche bags like McCain and Romney. You keep telling us that's the kind of guy we should have nominated.

You nominated a loser.

He was losing against Clinton during the primaries, and he's losing now.

But you Orange Jesus worshipers closed your eyes, stuck your fingers into your ears, wouldn't listen, and nominated the guy who consistently was the worst candidate against Clinton. All the other candidates did better than Trump against Clinton.

Now, he's going to lose to the most unpopular candidate ever to run for the Presidency - other than him, of course - a woman who has serious ethical and possibly legal issues.

That's how bad Trump is.

So you guys don't really give a shit about Clinton winning. You were more interested in settling scores in the Republican Party.

Nice way to change the subject. Were McCain and Romney the kind of candidate we should nominate, or were they "losers," as you described them?

Against H. Clinton either one would have won...and then the GOP would get to pick SCOTUS nominees. Now..............?

Horse shit. They wouldn't even win their base. The Dims would have demonized them the same way they demonized Trump and Romney.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have no hesitation to compliment Trump on an amazingly effective campaign. He brought many issues to light and gave a voice to the outraged Americans have towards Washington. I just know that he is absolutely the wrong person to win the whitehouse. He should be no where near it.

Trump is NOT the best man for the job in the abstract, sure I agree with you. IF I had the right to pick the President I would not hesitate making Rand Paul or Jim Webb POTUS.

But they dropped out and Trump is THE ONLY GOOD PERSON LEFT RUNNING, IMO.

 

[Slade3200]

I have no hesitation to compliment Trump on an amazingly effective campaign. He brought many issues to light and gave a voice to the outraged Americans have towards Washington. I just know that he is absolutely the wrong person to win the whitehouse. He should be no where near it.

Trump is NOT the best man for the job in the abstract, sure I agree with you. IF I had the right to pick the President I would not hesitate making Rand Paul or Jim Webb POTUS.

But they dropped out and Trump is THE ONLY GOOD PERSON RUNNING, IMO.

Trump isn't the right fit for me but I respect the fact that he is for you and many others. I am going to do my best to support whoever wins tonight as I think this ugly partisan division we have going on is detrimental to our democracy.

Cheers to you and all others that express their passion for politics and love for our country. It gets heated and misguided at times but in the end we should all enjoy being part of the greatest democracy in the world.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump isn't the right fit for me but I respect the fact that he is for you and many others. I am going to do my best to support whoever wins tonight as I think this ugly partisan division we have going on is detrimental to our democracy.

Cheers to you and all others that express their passion for politics and love for our country. It gets heated and misguided at times but in the end we should all enjoy being part of the greatest democracy in the world.

Thank you and God bless you and yours as well.

We just all should keep in mind that WE ARE FIRST AND FOREMOST AMERICANS, and not let the partisanship divide us into angry and violent political camps. And no matter who wins, nothing changes that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every party typically gets hit in off year elections. The founders set it up that the president who wins gets to nominate. The Founders may not have foreseen parties, but that's the way it's set up. And the reason is pretty clear. Presidents come and go, but Justices tend to last a long time. So it's a check against overwhelming populism. The gop's position on not confirming Garland is wrong, as a matter of principle.

I totally disagree, but I will protect with my dying breath your Constitutional right to be wrong.

democrats are the opposite of Voltair. They don't agree with what you have to say, so will fight to the death to SILENCE you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like you said, all politicians lie, which means all politicians are corrupt to a degree. Knowing Trumps character I have no doubt that he would be, by far, the most corrupt politician in history. Clintons corruption that yall have been obsessing about is bad but not as bad as you make it out to be. I don't condone what she did with the server but I understand why she wanted to protect her communications. She's had millions attacking her and trying to discredit her for decades. Many lies and manipulations agaist her by her opponents. I don't blame her for being secretive and guarded.

Especially when you have a scam foundation you're getting rich off of. I would hide everything too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm in the marketing business and agree with much of what you say about word of mouth, however that applies to normal consumer products and services. People want to know which doctor their friends recommend or which TV has the best picture, which movie to go see, etc a recommendation from a friend goes a long way with that stuff. Voting is a different game. While I do recognize an effectiveness of word of mouth, it can also be very polarizing as it is a personal choice that many are passionate about. Both sides of this race want a landslide but reality is that we are in a close race and Clinton has an advantage. To say a Clinton victory means fraud before the votes are cast is a foolish statement. To say Trump has no chance of winning is also a foolish statement.

I totally disagree. I've been talking to undecided voters for a couple of months now, and when I informed them about Hillary, their choice became clear.

Granted, I work with the public and understand not everybody does. But I used that environment to help insure a Trump victory in my state. Word of mouth does work, because those fifteen or so people each tell another person, and those other fifteen tell another person, and so on.

 

[Slade3200]

Like you said, all politicians lie, which means all politicians are corrupt to a degree. Knowing Trumps character I have no doubt that he would be, by far, the most corrupt politician in history. Clintons corruption that yall have been obsessing about is bad but not as bad as you make it out to be. I don't condone what she did with the server but I understand why she wanted to protect her communications. She's had millions attacking her and trying to discredit her for decades. Many lies and manipulations agaist her by her opponents. I don't blame her for being secretive and guarded.

Especially when you have a scam foundation you're getting rich off of. I would hide everything too.

There's the next BS talking point. First it was Benghazi, she sat through an 11 hour committee and an FBI investigation, no criminal charges... Then you all move on to the email server, yelling "Criminal"... Months of investigations and no criminal actions were found... So now your onto the Foundation... See the trend? You wonder why the media and public don't grasp on to these things? Its because you've been crying wolf and yelling criminal time and time again and once the claims are vetted and no wrong doing is found, you bounce right onto the next one. It's so transparent. The foundation claim like all the others is complete BS and nothing more than partisan rhetoric. The foundation has great ratings and does great things for people all over the world. The Clintons have made and can make millions from speeches and book deals, they don't need a money laundering operation. Yall just sound nutty claiming such things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know you guys hate this--you hate being called uneducated whites but that is what you are. Uneducated Whites.

Today, the educated whites and people of color will save the country from an abomination.

No thanks. That's what you did the last two times, and now our healthcare is all Fd up plus we are close to 20 trillion in the hole and still have record amount of government dependents.

All those educated whites are voting for a person who's main goal is to make them a minority in their own country. Does that sound like smart people to you?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm in the marketing business and agree with much of what you say about word of mouth, however that applies to normal consumer products and services. People want to know which doctor their friends recommend or which TV has the best picture, which movie to go see, etc a recommendation from a friend goes a long way with that stuff. Voting is a different game. While I do recognize an effectiveness of word of mouth, it can also be very polarizing as it is a personal choice that many are passionate about. Both sides of this race want a landslide but reality is that we are in a close race and Clinton has an advantage. To say a Clinton victory means fraud before the votes are cast is a foolish statement. To say Trump has no chance of winning is also a foolish statement.

I totally disagree. I've been talking to undecided voters for a couple of months now, and when I informed them about Hillary, their choice became clear.

Granted, I work with the public and understand not everybody does. But I used that environment to help insure a Trump victory in my state. Word of mouth does work, because those fifteen or so people each tell another person, and those other fifteen tell another person, and so on.

Do you know how many people try to tell me things about politics and it is just plain wrong information. Sometimes I correct them and sometimes I just nod and act like i'm agreeing because I don't feel like engaging. You give yourself too much credit if you think just because you say something people are going to believe you. It might work for a small percent of mindless drones but most people decide for themselves.

 

[Grizz]

The difference between myself and the more "Progessive" folks I know is this....if it were JFK v Trump I'd vote JFK. If it were Hillary v Reagan you'd vote Hillary.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

oh c'mon Ray. I have more respect for you than that. you're a conspiracy theorist? really? is that what this has come to? C'mon man...

What's conspiracy about it? I used to deliver and repair home medical equipment. I came across a lot of patients with pneumonia, and I don't recall anybody recovering that fast. At a later age, it becomes deadly and requires hospitalization.