2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

Trump's craftiest move was to pick a fight with Megyn Kelly.  There is no subject the media thinks is more interesting and more important than the media:

Megyn Kelly to Donald Trump: 'Seriously?'

Donald Trump has done the impossible. Not only enticed people like me to vote for Ted Cruz, but also made the Cruz family into sympathetic figures.

Maybe he will get Mexico to pay for that wall. 

I like how the attack on Trump's wife basically got a pass, and nothing more than the usual, indirect PAC-attack "It wasn't us!", while Trump's counter is evoking massive derision.

The bad part for Trump's strategy is, that the attack on Melania was not at all likely to last much longer than a 1-week news cycle (and probably get him some unspoken admiration from most of his base)...while his counter attack is likely carry more lasting damage.

I can tell you, though, that his fans love the thing. See, there have already been like dozens of attacks and scandals that were to destroy Trump - but they all make him stronger. Cruz is a goner, at least in the internet-sphere.

Is this like how Hillary is a goner in the internet-sphere and yet still likely to be the nominee?

Trump will be the nominee. Wanna bet $100 on it?

[garbon]

Trump's craftiest move was to pick a fight with Megyn Kelly.  There is no subject the media thinks is more interesting and more important than the media:

Megyn Kelly to Donald Trump: 'Seriously?'

Donald Trump has done the impossible. Not only enticed people like me to vote for Ted Cruz, but also made the Cruz family into sympathetic figures.

Maybe he will get Mexico to pay for that wall. 

I like how the attack on Trump's wife basically got a pass, and nothing more than the usual, indirect PAC-attack "It wasn't us!", while Trump's counter is evoking massive derision.

The bad part for Trump's strategy is, that the attack on Melania was not at all likely to last much longer than a 1-week news cycle (and probably get him some unspoken admiration from most of his base)...while his counter attack is likely carry more lasting damage.

I can tell you, though, that his fans love the thing. See, there have already been like dozens of attacks and scandals that were to destroy Trump - but they all make him stronger. Cruz is a goner, at least in the internet-sphere.

Is this like how Hillary is a goner in the internet-sphere and yet still likely to be the nominee?

Trump will be the nominee. Wanna bet $100 on it?

I don't make bets and certainly not ones where the odds are stacked against me.

[alfred russel]

Trump is getting pummeled so hard from the press, from every angle, that for me, it is almost hard to not be sympathetic for him.

There is even a very condescending, absurd New York Times article that essentially likens his supporters to the main character from American Psycho.

First, he deserves negative press. Going after Cruz's wife's looks is beyond the pale, in addition to a thousand other beyond the pale things he has done. And no, Toni, it is not odd that the anti Trump PAC that put out the first ad basically got a pass, because that was not a campaign that put it out. It isn't just technically indirect--it is indirect. If Cruz was behind the ad, the story is not that he was disparaging Trump's wife, but that he is going to jail for violating campaign finance laws.

Second, in a republican primary being hated by the press is not a negative. The dynamic you mention of feeling sympathetic to him is a huge factor in his "success". He gets almost all of the coverage, and a lot of the coverage that others get is their response to his antics, so the republican race is basically a referendum on trump, with the "no" vote being divided between multiple candidates.

[Martinus]

Cruz retweeted the PAC's "ad" about Melanie Trump. Trump had every right to go after Cruz's wife in retaliation.

Seriously, Dorsey, no matter where I sit on a political spectrum, you are still a piece of shit.

[Legbiter]

Gentlemen, the Trumpinator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVqoZb6967A#t=162 

[alfred russel]

Cruz retweeted the PAC's "ad" about Melanie Trump. Trump had every right to go after Cruz's wife in retaliation.

Seriously, Dorsey, no matter where I sit on a political spectrum, you are still a piece of shit.

Uh, I just went through the past week plus of Cruz tweets, and while I may have lost a few brain cells, I did not find anything about the ad. He has however condemned it.

[Martinus]

Gentlemen, the Trumpinator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVqoZb6967A#t=162 

[alfred russel]

Also, Marty, lets pretend that Cruz did retweet the ad. That definitely does not give Trump basis to publicly go after the appearance of Cruz's wife. That is a total lack of class.

[Martinus]

Also, Marty, lets pretend that Cruz did retweet the ad. That definitely does not give Trump basis to publicly go after the appearance of Cruz's wife. That is a total lack of class.

I disagree.

[Tonitrus]

Trump is getting pummeled so hard from the press, from every angle, that for me, it is almost hard to not be sympathetic for him.

There is even a very condescending, absurd New York Times article that essentially likens his supporters to the main character from American Psycho.

First, he deserves negative press. Going after Cruz's wife's looks is beyond the pale, in addition to a thousand other beyond the pale things he has done. And no, Toni, it is not odd that the anti Trump PAC that put out the first ad basically got a pass, because that was not a campaign that put it out. It isn't just technically indirect--it is indirect. If Cruz was behind the ad, the story is not that he was disparaging Trump's wife, but that he is going to jail for violating campaign finance laws.

Second, in a republican primary being hated by the press is not a negative. The dynamic you mention of feeling sympathetic to him is a huge factor in his "success". He gets almost all of the coverage, and a lot of the coverage that others get is their response to his antics, so the republican race is basically a referendum on trump, with the "no" vote being divided between multiple candidates.

Bah.  The "It wasn't us, it was that PAC that called your mother a whore and said for me that did it" is one of the oldest political attack dodges in the Bill Belichick Playbook of American Politics.  And is exactly how most of the candidates go about legally dodging campaign finance laws. 

[Tonitrus]

Also, Marty, lets pretend that Cruz did retweet the ad. That definitely does not give Trump basis to publicly go after the appearance of Cruz's wife. That is a total lack of class.

I disagree.

I agree that it does show a great lack of class.  But even more it was unnecessary, piss-poor campaign strategy.

But of course, Cruz's on-the-ground campaign stratagems have been at a more cunning, snake-like level of classlessness already. 

[Legbiter]

Also, Marty, lets pretend that Cruz did retweet the ad. That definitely does not give Trump basis to publicly go after the appearance of Cruz's wife. That is a total lack of class.

[Eddie Teach]

Also, Marty, lets pretend that Cruz did retweet the ad. That definitely does not give Trump basis to publicly go after the appearance of Cruz's wife. That is a total lack of class.

I disagree.

Fans of the Jerry Springer Show the Donald Trump campaign aren't really qualified to judge.

[alfred russel]

Bah.  The "It wasn't us, it was that PAC that called your mother a whore and said for me that did it" is one of the oldest political attack dodges in the Bill Belichick Playbook of American Politics.  And is exactly how most of the candidates go about legally dodging campaign finance laws.

I agree. But that doesn't mean it isn't accurate!

There are a couple of ways a PAC can get set up. Often a candidate will have an aide resign and go off to form a PAC before a campaign. Then the connection - while broken legally and technically uncoordinated - is still there.

Then there are PACs that just get set up without candidate involvement and the campaign really has nothing to do with them.

Here is an article on this PAC: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/anti-trump-pac-goes-live-on-eve-of-gop-debate/article/2578371

It isn't pro cruz - it is anti trump. The people setting it up apparently are a former staffer for Scott Walker and the other with ties to Bush and Rubio. (I didn't do in depth research, just quick googles).

Cruz denounced the ads, appears to have no connection with the people that set up the PAC, the PAC was not set up to support him, and is explicitly anti Trump in focus.

Can you explain to me how Cruz is culpable?

[Tonitrus]

Cruz denounced the ads, appears to have no connection with the people that set up the PAC, the PAC was not set up to support him, and is

I haven't seen anywhere he has done that...only a denial of any connection, and a general statement that spouses/family should be off limits (but I he would go after Bill Clinton hardcore in the general election).