Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

I do have a question to satisfy my personal curiosity though. Among those of you who are likely GOP voters, how many would vote for Hillary or Bernie if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the nominee? How many just wouldn't vote?

 

[320 Years of History]

The polls have been running steady the past week with Ted Cruz a consistent 10 points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. All the pundits say that Wisconsin is the pivot state--if Trump doesn't win there, he won't get sufficient delegates to win outright.

But was listening to another analyst last night who said that the polling has been mostly of likely Republican voters and if so, then the independents could skew those numbers. Also Wisconsin is an open primary state in which Democrats could also vote for a GOP candidate which seems more likely than a Republican voting for Hillary or Bernie.

Anyhow who knows how right the pundits have it? I will be watching the Tuesday election returns with interest though.

Red:
True, maybe. On the face of things "likely Republican voters" can mean "people who assert they'll vote for a GOP candidate," but, among other things, it can also mean "registered Republicans," or "people who are likely to vote, and who assert they will vote for a Republican, given a jurisdiction's rules about who can and cannot vote in a given primary. I can look at Gallup's website to find out what it means when Gallup uses the phrase "likely voters," but I can't say for sure what it means when they or others say "likely Republican voters." To my critical read of the term, the phrase itself, like so much pertaining to politics, to say nothing of most folks' general approach to communication, is ambiguous.

Perhaps one can find the poll on the WWW and examine the methodology the pollster used to conduct it? I don't know, and I don't have any interest in doing so for as many polls as there are out there or each time "this or that" one is cited. I mostly just recognize that all polls are made with a set of assumptions and that everybody that I've ever heard cite a poll leaves vague what be those assumptions.

I would like to think the pollsters (not pundits -- the pundits rely on the pollsters' data to posit what they see as the probable and plausible outcomes) know what they are doing when they design their poll questions and canvas voters. I want to think that mainly because it's what they do for a living. God forfend they make a significant enough goof in designing and executing their polls that representational faithfulness is lost or at a minimum rather than a maximum. That said, they have been wrong at times, although not often (or ever AFAIK), because of a variety of factors, some of which include novice poll design/execution, but most of which should derive from environmental changes that occur between the poll's conduct and the actual election date.

Blue:
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? Do you know of something that legitimately indicates Democrats (D) lean conservative more so, and/or more likely so, than Republicans (R) lean liberal? I don't, so it'd be useful for me to lean a bit more in that regard.

My personal feeling is that Ds and Rs are equally likely to swayed by the demagoguery the candidates spew. About the only thing, and it may not be a small thing for I'm not a pollster, that suggests this time round Ds may vote for a GOP candidate is that Trump strikes me as more D than R, and I think most folks can see that as well. However, in Trump's case, there are so many other issues countering that superficial reality that I find it hard to say what Ds will do re: voting for him in an open primary.

I really don't see Ds voting for Mssrs. Cruz or Kasich in large enough numbers to make a difference, but some might. Mr. Kasich certainly has an edge on Mr. Cruz and Trump in the integrity department. That may be enough to draw them away from Mr. Sanders if they don't much care for him.

But what do I know? I'm a character and content voter, not an emotionally driven voter, and there's no question that most voters are emotionally driven rather than content driven. (I think everyone cares about character, but I don't believe everyone holds candidates to the same standard of it that I do.)

Green:
I watched John King the other night and he walked through the "delegate math." Wisconsin is important, and winning it is better for Trump than is losing it. That puerilely obvious thing said, Mr. King noted that if Trump does not win Wisconsin, he must get 50% of the NY GOP vote to have any real chance of locking up the 1200+ pledged (voters) delegate votes he needs to secure the GOP nomination on the first vote at the GOP convention.

 

[Foxfyre]

The polls have been running steady the past week with Ted Cruz a consistent 10 points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. All the pundits say that Wisconsin is the pivot state--if Trump doesn't win there, he won't get sufficient delegates to win outright.

But was listening to another analyst last night who said that the polling has been mostly of likely Republican voters and if so, then the independents could skew those numbers. Also Wisconsin is an open primary state in which Democrats could also vote for a GOP candidate which seems more likely than a Republican voting for Hillary or Bernie.

Anyhow who knows how right the pundits have it? I will be watching the Tuesday election returns with interest though.

Red:
True, maybe. On the face of things "likely Republican voters" can mean "people who assert they'll vote for a GOP candidate," but, among other things, it can also mean "registered Republicans," or "people who are likely to vote, and who assert they will vote for a Republican, given a jurisdiction's rules about who can and cannot vote in a given primary. I can look at Gallup's website to find out what it means when Gallup uses the phrase "likely voters," but I can't say for sure what it means when they or others say "likely Republican voters." To my critical read of the term, the phrase itself, like so much pertaining to politics, to say nothing of most folks' general approach to communication, is ambiguous.

Perhaps one can find the poll on the WWW and examine the methodology the pollster used to conduct it? I don't know, and I don't have any interest in doing so for as many polls as there are out there or each time "this or that" one is cited. I mostly just recognize that all polls are made with a set of assumptions and that everybody that I've ever heard cite a poll leaves vague what be those assumptions.

I would like to think the pollsters (not pundits -- the pundits rely on the pollsters' data to posit what they see as the probable and plausible outcomes) know what they are doing when they design their poll questions and canvas voters. I want to think that mainly because it's what they do for a living. God forfend they make a significant enough goof in designing and executing their polls that representational faithfulness is lost or at a minimum rather than a maximum. That said, they have been wrong at times, although not often (or ever AFAIK), because of a variety of factors, some of which include novice poll design/execution, but most of which should derive from environmental changes that occur between the poll's conduct and the actual election date.

Blue:
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? Do you know of something that legitimately indicates Democrats (D) lean conservative more so, and/or more likely so, than Republicans (R) lean liberal? I don't, so it'd be useful for me to lean a bit more in that regard.

My personal feeling is that Ds and Rs are equally likely to swayed by the demagoguery the candidates spew. About the only thing, and it may not be a small thing for I'm not a pollster, that suggests this time round Ds may vote for a GOP candidate is that Trump strikes me as more D than R, and I think most folks can see that as well. However, in Trump's case, there are so many other issues countering that superficial reality that I find it hard to say what Ds will do re: voting for him in an open primary.

I really don't see Ds voting for Mssrs. Cruz or Kasich in large enough numbers to make a difference, but some might. Mr. Kasich certainly has an edge on Mr. Cruz and Trump in the integrity department. That may be enough to draw them away from Mr. Sanders if they don't much care for him.

But what do I know? I'm a character and content voter, not an emotionally driven voter, and there's no question that most voters are emotionally driven rather than content driven. (I think everyone cares about character, but I don't believe everyone holds candidates to the same standard of it that I do.)

Green:
I watched John King the other night and he walked through the "delegate math." Wisconsin is important, and winning it is better for Trump than is losing it. That puerilely obvious thing said, Mr. King noted that if Trump does not win Wisconsin, he must get 50% of the NY GOP vote to have any real chance of locking up the 1200+ pledged (voters) delegate votes he needs to secure the GOP nomination on the first vote at the GOP convention.

To answer your "Blue" question, I don't know if anybody has done a recent analysis of the likelihood of people voting other than the party they are registered in. But in my observation, Republicans are more likely to vote re fiscal, security, constitutional, and Supreme Court issues while Democrats seem to be more social issues oriented.

So in 2008 and 2012 the Democrats were voting almost entirely on emotion. The GOP were stuck with a candidate in both elections that had relatively high unfavorables. So in 2008 more Republicans took a chance on the 'unknown' Obama than would have otherwise voted Democrat. And many Republicans didn't vote at all in 2012 rather than vote for the more unappealing Romney.

Now we are into 2016. Now the Democrats are faced with a candidate with high unfavorables, though polls suggest most Democrats still hold Hillary in high regard and are still hanging in there with Obama. But a fairly significant percentage of Democrats are disappointed with Obama and aren't seeing Hillary as a better option.

I simply can't see many Republicans voting for Hillary as she does not represent their ideals fiscally, or in security or in constitutional or Supreme Court issues. I can see Democrats rejecting a Hillary they don't trust all that much and rejecting the socialist Sanders. And those either won't vote or they will vote for a third party or for an 'unknown, untried' Republican who they hope can improve the economy in ways that will benefit them.

So all things considered, IMO Democrats, however small the numbers, are more likely to vote GOP than are Republicans likely to vote Democrat.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is interesting that over the years to note the highs and lows of approval ratings for Presidents. In recent years GOP Presidents seems to have the highest highs but also the lowest lows. But Obama has the lowest highs of any President since before Eisenhower but also the highest lows since Kennedy. How much that could play into the 2016 election is anybody's guess.

 

[320 Years of History]

The polls have been running steady the past week with Ted Cruz a consistent 10 points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. All the pundits say that Wisconsin is the pivot state--if Trump doesn't win there, he won't get sufficient delegates to win outright.

But was listening to another analyst last night who said that the polling has been mostly of likely Republican voters and if so, then the independents could skew those numbers. Also Wisconsin is an open primary state in which Democrats could also vote for a GOP candidate which seems more likely than a Republican voting for Hillary or Bernie.

Anyhow who knows how right the pundits have it? I will be watching the Tuesday election returns with interest though.

Red:
True, maybe. On the face of things "likely Republican voters" can mean "people who assert they'll vote for a GOP candidate," but, among other things, it can also mean "registered Republicans," or "people who are likely to vote, and who assert they will vote for a Republican, given a jurisdiction's rules about who can and cannot vote in a given primary. I can look at Gallup's website to find out what it means when Gallup uses the phrase "likely voters," but I can't say for sure what it means when they or others say "likely Republican voters." To my critical read of the term, the phrase itself, like so much pertaining to politics, to say nothing of most folks' general approach to communication, is ambiguous.

Perhaps one can find the poll on the WWW and examine the methodology the pollster used to conduct it? I don't know, and I don't have any interest in doing so for as many polls as there are out there or each time "this or that" one is cited. I mostly just recognize that all polls are made with a set of assumptions and that everybody that I've ever heard cite a poll leaves vague what be those assumptions.

I would like to think the pollsters (not pundits -- the pundits rely on the pollsters' data to posit what they see as the probable and plausible outcomes) know what they are doing when they design their poll questions and canvas voters. I want to think that mainly because it's what they do for a living. God forfend they make a significant enough goof in designing and executing their polls that representational faithfulness is lost or at a minimum rather than a maximum. That said, they have been wrong at times, although not often (or ever AFAIK), because of a variety of factors, some of which include novice poll design/execution, but most of which should derive from environmental changes that occur between the poll's conduct and the actual election date.

Blue:
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? Do you know of something that legitimately indicates Democrats (D) lean conservative more so, and/or more likely so, than Republicans (R) lean liberal? I don't, so it'd be useful for me to lean a bit more in that regard.

My personal feeling is that Ds and Rs are equally likely to swayed by the demagoguery the candidates spew. About the only thing, and it may not be a small thing for I'm not a pollster, that suggests this time round Ds may vote for a GOP candidate is that Trump strikes me as more D than R, and I think most folks can see that as well. However, in Trump's case, there are so many other issues countering that superficial reality that I find it hard to say what Ds will do re: voting for him in an open primary.

I really don't see Ds voting for Mssrs. Cruz or Kasich in large enough numbers to make a difference, but some might. Mr. Kasich certainly has an edge on Mr. Cruz and Trump in the integrity department. That may be enough to draw them away from Mr. Sanders if they don't much care for him.

But what do I know? I'm a character and content voter, not an emotionally driven voter, and there's no question that most voters are emotionally driven rather than content driven. (I think everyone cares about character, but I don't believe everyone holds candidates to the same standard of it that I do.)

Green:
I watched John King the other night and he walked through the "delegate math." Wisconsin is important, and winning it is better for Trump than is losing it. That puerilely obvious thing said, Mr. King noted that if Trump does not win Wisconsin, he must get 50% of the NY GOP vote to have any real chance of locking up the 1200+ pledged (voters) delegate votes he needs to secure the GOP nomination on the first vote at the GOP convention.

To answer your "Blue" question, I don't know if anybody has done a recent analysis of the likelihood of people voting other than the party they are registered in. But in my observation, Republicans are more likely to vote re fiscal, security, constitutional, and Supreme Court issues while Democrats seem to be more social issues oriented.

So in 2008 and 2012 the Democrats were voting almost entirely on emotion. The GOP were stuck with a candidate in both elections that had relatively high unfavorables. So in 2008 more Republicans took a chance on the 'unknown' Obama than would have otherwise voted Democrat. And many Republicans didn't vote at all in 2012 rather than vote for the more unappealing Romney.

Now we are into 2016. Now the Democrats are faced with a candidate with high unfavorables, though polls suggest most Democrats still hold Hillary in high regard and are still hanging in there with Obama. But a fairly significant percentage of Democrats are disappointed with Obama and aren't seeing Hillary as a better option.

I simply can't see many Republicans voting for Hillary as she does not represent their ideals fiscally, or in security or in constitutional or Supreme Court issues. I can see Democrats rejecting a Hillary they don't trust all that much and rejecting the socialist Sanders. And those either won't vote or they will vote for a third party or for an 'unknown, untried' Republican who they hope can improve the economy in ways that will benefit them.

So all things considered, IMO Democrats, however small the numbers, are more likely to vote GOP than are Republicans likely to vote Democrat.

TY for your reply. I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand it, and that's all I wanted to achieve by asking the question I did.

FWIW, the current political landscape in the U.S. sees a materially larger share of the population is Democrat than is Republican.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is interesting that over the years to note the highs and lows of approval ratings for Presidents. In recent years GOP Presidents seems to have the highest highs but also the lowest lows. But Obama has the lowest highs of any President since before Eisenhower but also the highest lows since Kennedy. How much that could play into the 2016 election is anybody's guess.

Red:
I think that's circumstantial at best. Check the major news events in the years of the highest of the highs, and you'll find that a war or something roughly like one had just begun. If nothing else, Americans, all of us, are patriotic and will rally around our President in a time of war or near war with a foreign adversary, most especially one that can be portrayed as not much like Americans. Of course, we'll stop doing so once the war drags on or is found/perceived to be a waste (on balance, doing less good than more good) of American resources.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is interesting that over the years to note the highs and lows of approval ratings for Presidents. In recent years GOP Presidents seems to have the highest highs but also the lowest lows. But Obama has the lowest highs of any President since before Eisenhower but also the highest lows since Kennedy. How much that could play into the 2016 election is anybody's guess.

Red:
I think that's circumstantial at best. Check the major news events in the years of the highest of the highs, and you'll find that a war or something roughly like one had just begun. If nothing else, Americans, all of us, are patriotic and will rally around our President in a time of war or near war with a foreign adversary, most especially one that can be portrayed as not much like Americans. Of course, we'll stop doing so once the war drags on or is found/perceived to be a waste (on balance, doing less good than more good) of American resources.

I don't see that the Pew Research Center qualified the highs and lows with the presumed reasons for them, so I didn't either. I just found the chart interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wish I had seen this yesterday to post it then:

"I gotta tell ya, I just don't know who to vote for. Each one of these candidates is so qualified, honest, and in touch with the everyday reality of American lif...e. Any of them would make an excellent President of the United States. It's so inspiring to see pure, American democracy at work; intelligent citizens, engaged and informed by trustworthy media sources, employing sense, reason and critical thinking, deciding the path of the greatest nation on Earth. Charlatans like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and all those other guys will soon be forgotten, overshadowed by the greatness and grandeur of these champions of freedom and righteousness. We can proudly stand and declare with one voice that freedom, democracy and our great country are alive and well. Every vote counts! Let your voice be heard!

Happy April Fools' Day, everyone."

 

[320 Years of History]

It is interesting that over the years to note the highs and lows of approval ratings for Presidents. In recent years GOP Presidents seems to have the highest highs but also the lowest lows. But Obama has the lowest highs of any President since before Eisenhower but also the highest lows since Kennedy. How much that could play into the 2016 election is anybody's guess.

Red:
I think that's circumstantial at best. Check the major news events in the years of the highest of the highs, and you'll find that a war or something roughly like one had just begun. If nothing else, Americans, all of us, are patriotic and will rally around our President in a time of war or near war with a foreign adversary, most especially one that can be portrayed as not much like Americans. Of course, we'll stop doing so once the war drags on or is found/perceived to be a waste (on balance, doing less good than more good) of American resources.

I don't see that the Pew Research Center qualified the highs and lows with the presumed reasons for them, so I didn't either. I just found the chart interesting.

Okay. I noticed too that Pew did not do that. I don't much like it that they didn't, but I understand too that as the thesis statement for the article was "views of presidents have become more politically polarized, as well as how key events in U.S. history have helped shape positive and negative views of our commanders in chief," the chart you chose to share was more a "footnote" to that point than a major contributor to making it.

Recognizing that, I looked quickly at the highs and thought, "Wasn't there a war going on and that coincided with each of them?" So I did a cursory check to see what major events occurred in the years of the President's highest highs to attempt glean anecdotally whether something among those events might explain what be the cause of the highest highs.

 

[Shrimpbox]

There is no way I would EVER vote for Hilary. We already have one serial liar in the White House and it is unimaginable to me that voters would overlook Ms Clintons immoral and unethical behavior, naive me. She let people die in Benghazi without doing anything to help them and one would install this shrew as commander in chief? As the latest decision about the California teachers union shows, the country hangs in the balance at the Supreme Court. Any democrat post Obama values ideology over their country so for a patriot the choice is clear. Donald can't keep his mouth shut and I suspect he has reached his apex. We will probably get Kasich who will just perpetuate and continue the republican surrender, but even a rino would be better than a Clinton selling pieces of America off one at a time.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no way I would EVER vote for Hilary. We already have one serial liar in the White House and it is unimaginable to me that voters would overlook Ms Clintons immoral and unethical behavior, naive me. She let people die in Benghazi without doing anything to help them and one would install this shrew as commander in chief? As the latest decision about the California teachers union shows, the country hangs in the balance at the Supreme Court. Any democrat post Obama values ideology over their country so for a patriot the choice is clear. Donald can't keep his mouth shut and I suspect he has reached his apex. We will probably get Kasich who will just perpetuate and continue the republican surrender, but even a rino would be better than a Clinton selling pieces of America off one at a time.

I tend to agree re Kasich. I believe he is a steady, consistent, and principled pol, not an ideologue, but I just don't see that he would enact the reforms or be an agent for change to stop our headlong rush into an ever more totalitarian government. I think he wouldn't do additional damage, but it would be pretty much status quo.

Cruz is an ideologue, and I have come to see that he is not a particularly principled or honest one; however he is the one I would most trust with those Supreme Court nominations.

And Trump is a loose canon that we have no clue how he would govern. But my gut tells me he would run an administration as he runs his businesses with judicious delegation, surrounding himself with the best people, and putting the best people into positions of responsibility in the bureaucracy. I suspect if he is the nominee, we will see a much more presidential Donald Trump in the general campaign and I think he is the one most likely to have the instincts and skill to fix things that are wrong and implement positive change. But there is that mouth. And there is the fear of the unknown and whether his lack of government experience would be too severe of a handicap in international dealings, etc. If he picks the right advisors, he could be okay. But what kind of supreme court justices would he appoint? I have no clue.

I wish we could squish the three of them into one guy and we would have the perfect candidate.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Fox I am trying to put together an "I am so tired of stupid" thread incorporating idiocy on both sides, but let's cut to the chase on the election.

Anyone who can't navigate the abortion questions at this stage of the campaign just ain't ready for prime time. You can't be my candidate for president and let hit man Mathews bully you into making exactly the mistake he was looking for to demean and diminish your campaign. Donald if you want to have any success listen to counsel, bone up on the issues, stop looking in the mirror, and just keep your mouth shut. This is not like building a hotel. That is a finite exercise with a beginning and an end. Running for political office is a never ending all consuming, constantly changing grind under an intense spotlight, especially if it is the presidential election. Even a maverick like trump has to exercise some discipline if he is to convince voters. He has a substantial problem with women, so he allows himself to be manipulat d into saying that women should be punished if they have an abortion when it is illegal. STUPID. Just go ahead and set back the republican candidates a couple of light years because you are not up to speed or are lacking awareness. Way to give the unelectable Hilary Clinton the very ammunition she needs to beat you and change the conversation from her corruption to your lack of readiness for the highest office in the land.

This turn of events is so punishing in so many ways. All the people he brought to the party, all,the energy and momentum he generated amongst the People ends up being squandered. All those voters who put up trump signs are now going to doubt their candidate and develop election exhaustion and disgust. Did I hear Republican Party implosion? Ben Carson had it right, republicans can allays find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Cruz is working his game plan to a tee. If it's me and Donald I win. Kasich is pushing the only candidate that can beat Hilary in the general. The establishment is working behind the scene to undercut trump, conservative woman are ganging up to undercut trump, conservatives are ganging up to undercut trump, and the media is going to feed like a bunch of zombies on the Donald. Mr Combover it's a contact sport, man up or stop wasting the goodwill of honest voters.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox I am trying to put together an "I am so tired of stupid" thread incorporating idiocy on both sides, but let's cut to the chase on the election.

Anyone who can't navigate the abortion questions at this stage of the campaign just ain't ready for prime time. You can't be my candidate for president and let hit man Mathews bully you into making exactly the mistake he was looking for to demean and diminish your campaign. Donald if you want to have any success listen to counsel, bone up on the issues, stop looking in the mirror, and just keep your mouth shut. This is not like building a hotel. That is a finite exercise with a beginning and an end. Running for political office is a never ending all consuming, constantly changing grind under an intense spotlight, especially if it is the presidential election. Even a maverick like trump has to exercise some discipline if he is to convince voters. He has a substantial problem with women, so he allows himself to be manipulat d into saying that women should be punished if they have an abortion when it is illegal. STUPID. Just go ahead and set back the republican candidates a couple of light years because you are not up to speed or are lacking awareness. Way to give the unelectable Hilary Clinton the very ammunition she needs to beat you and change the conversation from her corruption to your lack of readiness for the highest office in the land.

This turn of events is so punishing in so many ways. All the people he brought to the party, all,the energy and momentum he generated amongst the People ends up being squandered. All those voters who put up trump signs are now going to doubt their candidate and develop election exhaustion and disgust. Did I hear Republican Party implosion? Ben Carson had it right, republicans can allays find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Cruz is working his game plan to a tee. If it's me and Donald I win. Kasich is pushing the only candidate that can beat Hilary in the general. The establishment is working behind the scene to undercut trump, conservative woman are ganging up to undercut trump, conservatives are ganging up to undercut trump, and the media is going to feed like a bunch of zombies on the Donald. Mr Combover it's a contact sport, man up or stop wasting the goodwill of honest voters.

Okay, I get it. You don't like Trump. Obviously many people don't. But whatever you think about him, he has been able to generate more enthusiasm and has generated more over all support than anybody else on the right has. I can't evaluate a candidate on one misspeak, especially on an interview intended to skewer the interviewee. And I don't think most Republicans are one issue voters. So yes, the abortion miscue hurt him and made wonderful fodder for pundits and message boards, but I tend to go with Rush's assessment that I happened to catch on the way to the grocery store this week:

Rush said: it was an unfortunate statement, but he doesn't have a doubt in the world that in the Donald's mind, he was saying that if the law is that abortion is illegal, then those having an abortion are subject to the law. But as the Donald expresses himself uncarefully in this campaign, that one didn't come out as he intended and it went viral really quickly.

But again, how many Republicans and independents and blue dog Democrats are one issue voters? And Trump supporters seem to be the people who are tired of being manipulated and dictated to by the media and talking head pols and resent these obvious media skewers intended to hurt somebody. That explains why every time they have piled on Trump and declared him dead meat, his poll numbers have improved.

Trump was trailing in Wisconsin by 10 points before that misspeak and the gap is smaller yesterday (6-1/2), so will that one thing sink Trump? I don't think so. He may lose in Wisconsin tomorrow, but it won't be because of that one thing.

And this thread is my "I'm tired of stupid" thread.

 

[Shrimpbox]

You a are reading my posts too superficially Fox. I love the way trump has shaken things up. I love the way he attacks the PC crowd. I love his emphasis on realities and that he wants to make America great again. I bit the bullet and voted for him in the Florida primary.

But my problem is a huge amount of republicans are invested in trump. The stakes are serious now. You f he loves this country he cannot keep approaching his candidacy so cavalierly or as a reflex. I don't believe in throwing away my vote and if he keeps acting stupid that is exactly what I have done. He OWES it to his supporters to be the best that he can be. If you want to make America great again than you have to also be as exceptional as the country you profess to love by being the best you can be. Man up.

 

[Foxfyre]

You a are reading my posts too superficially Fox. I love the way trump has shaken things up. I love the way he attacks the PC crowd. I love his emphasis on realities and that he wants to make America great again. I bit the bullet and voted for him in the Florida primary.

But my problem is a huge amount of republicans are invested in trump. The stakes are serious now. You f he loves this country he cannot keep approaching his candidacy so cavalierly or as a reflex. I don't believe in throwing away my vote and if he keeps acting stupid that is exactly what I have done. He OWES it to his supporters to be the best that he can be. If you want to make America great again than you have to also be as exceptional as the country you profess to love by being the best you can be. Man up.

Okay, I did misread your point, so thanks for clarifying.

But again, I think Trump is about as dumb and undisciplined as a fox. He is a master salesman, a promoter like no other, and an organizer such as few of us have ever known. And given what this man's history, track record, and what his friends and enemies say about him, I have come to the following strong suspicions:

His charm now is not to persuade but to attract. His unusual half spoken thoughts, rapid fire, seemingly disorganized speaking style in the campaign is on purpose. The man has a college degree in economics and certainly is well read and a polished speaker when he wants to be. But now he is un poll tested, unscripted, and un politically correct Trump speaking in one or two syllable words as much as possible, using language as most of us do in everyday conversation. He doesn't speak down to or lecture his audience as most pols do. He speaks to them in their language and in the topics they have been thinking for a long time now.

They don't care if he doesn't articulate a detailed plan set in granite plan for how he will accomplish things. He doesn't insult their intelligence that way as all the other pols do. Those of us with a brain know that nobody can have it all figured out on the day they take office. Solving complicated issues takes a lot of consultation, study, and ability to be flexible. We see his refusal to pretend that a firm plan is in place as refreshingly honest.

I think we will see a somewhat different nominee if Trump does become the nominee. The 'loose cannon' persona will be gone and we will have a more presidential looking guy representing the party. I hope he doesn't lose all that down-to-earth unscripted charm that has been attracting people back to the party though.

And a President Trump? I have no clue whether he will be great or whether he will be terrible as President. But I am pretty sure he will be Presidential, and whether we love him or hate him, he won't be boring even though his head spokespeople way that is what we should expect in a President Trump.

 

[HenryBHough]

Impossible to predict who the candidates might one day be. George Soros hasn't told The Democrat Party Adherents yet who they are to throw to the wolves. Republicans are still in an orgy of cannibalism.

My real interest is in how America will accept its first appointed president. "cause that's going to be the outcome of a ballot filled with names and no clear electoral majority for any.

I predict riots.....but that's not hard to predict in these days of police stand-downs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Impossible to predict who the candidates might one day be. George Soros hasn't told The Democrat Party Adherents yet who they are to throw to the wolves. Republicans are still in an orgy of cannibalism.

By real interest is in how America will accept its first appointed president. "cause that's going to be the outcome of a ballot filled with names and no clear electoral majority for any.

I predict riots.....but that's not hard to predict in these days of police stand-downs.

Ah too bad you aren't a candidate. The last one who suggested that if the GOP rejected the people's choice and appointed their own candidate, he thought there might be riots (Trump said that) was blasted by the media and on the message boards. You could get a lot of media attention too.

You and I may be the only ones who agree with Trump in that possibility, though probably not. Republicans and conservatives are usually not ones that usually lean toward civil disobedience and riots in such matters. We leave that kind of thing up to Democrat supporters.

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't evaluate a candidate on one misspeak

I doubt anyone does or would. But look at how often Trump "misspeaks." He's up to 95 times now, that's up from 83 when I checked last week. In fairness, his occasions of telling the truth have gone up too. They are now at three, up from last week's two.

And that is the problem with Trump and what he says. All the enthusiasm in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if it's based on things that largely aren't true. When one has a higher increase in the mostly false (or worse) statements one makes than in the bump in true ones, that's a real problem because it indicates one cannot rely on what the man says.

As I've said before, it illustrates that by and by a large margin, if the man's mouth is open, he's snoring, eating or lying.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't evaluate a candidate on one misspeak

I doubt anyone does or would. But look at how often Trump "misspeaks." He's up to 95 times now, that's up from 83 when I checked last week. In fairness, his occasions of telling the truth have gone up too. They are now at three, up from last week's two.

And that is the problem with Trump and what he says. All the enthusiasm in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if it's based on things that largely aren't true. When one has a higher increase in the mostly false (or worse) statements one makes than in the bump in true ones, that's a real problem because it indicates one cannot rely on what the man says.

As I've said before, it illustrates that by and by a large margin, if the man's mouth is open, he's snoring, eating or lying.

Well I prefer to draw my own conclusions about the truthfulness of what people say and I base those conclusions on what I know about the subject. If I don't know a great deal about the subject, I reserve my judgment until I do.

I do however take anything Politifact says with a grain of salt. I have caught them in far too many questionable 'rulings' myself and I don't seem to be the only one:

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't evaluate a candidate on one misspeak

I doubt anyone does or would. But look at how often Trump "misspeaks." He's up to 95 times now, that's up from 83 when I checked last week. In fairness, his occasions of telling the truth have gone up too. They are now at three, up from last week's two.

And that is the problem with Trump and what he says. All the enthusiasm in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if it's based on things that largely aren't true. When one has a higher increase in the mostly false (or worse) statements one makes than in the bump in true ones, that's a real problem because it indicates one cannot rely on what the man says.

As I've said before, it illustrates that by and by a large margin, if the man's mouth is open, he's snoring, eating or lying.

Well I prefer to draw my own conclusions about the truthfulness of what people say and I base those conclusions on what I know about the subject. If I don't know a great deal about the subject, I reserve my judgment until I do.

I do however take anything Politifact says with a grain of salt. I have caught them in far too many questionable 'rulings' myself and I don't seem to be the only one:

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

As well you should. I won't accept someone else's assertions about what is so or not so without reading the details of the situation. With quite a lot of PolitiFact (PF) remarks, I do bother to "click" on the summary numbers to find out what they offer as an explanation for their judgement call. I have come across instances whereby they and I have differing assessments about things. Most often those things fall into these categories:

• PF says it mostly false and I say it's wholly false.
• PF says it's "wholly false and I say it's only mostly false.
• The same "flips" as go true and mostly true.
• I have yet to disagree with their assertions of "pants on fire" false or with what they say is fully true.
• Generally, I ignore half true because that stuff is also half false and it's not likely to be fully true or fully false. Were a given individual on the margin, so to speak, then I'd look at the "half" stuff.