Poll
Question:
Come the 2016 Presidential Elections in the US, where will Trump be?
Option 1: Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party
votes: 18
Option 2: Presidential Candidate in an Independent/ Third Party run?
votes: 9
Option 3: Not a presidential candidate at all.
votes: 16
Option 4: Some other scenario...
votes: 1
What do you think? Where will Trump be at when the time comes to vote?
You sound low energy
Quote from: Jacob on December 07, 2015, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 07, 2015, 07:35:19 PM
You sound low energy
Where's that from?
It's a Trumpism. JEB is low energy and therefore not presidential material.
I'm in my trump phase.
Not a candidate. I don't think Trump's actually interested in being President--and I don't think a bunch of poll-respondents are actually interested in voting for him.
You know, he kinda already is a Presidential candidate.
I don't think he'll get the party's nomination though.
Quote from: Jacob on December 07, 2015, 07:31:19 PM
What do you think? Where will Trump be at when the time comes to vote?
Presidential candidate for the GOP. And he'll grab around 40% of the vote.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 07, 2015, 08:31:32 PM
You know, he kinda already is a Presidential candidate.
I don't think he'll get the party's nomination though.
Don't underestimate the stupidity of the right.
He will get a bump from that stupid Islamic statement(s).
Quote from: viper37 on December 07, 2015, 08:47:11 PM
Presidential candidate for the GOP. And he'll grab around 40% of the vote.
If he actually was Mussolini he'd get 40%. He'd probably get 45% (though I think it will be Rubio or Cruz getting 45% instead).
Oh hell I don't know. I need to see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire first but damn this is one weird situation.
Nominee
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/2016-indiana-county-predicts-every-election-trump-fever-213411
QuoteThe most accurate pundits in the history of American presidential politics reside far from the Beltway, on a 403-square mile patch of land along the western border of Indiana. At the intersections of U.S. Highways 40 and 41, and off Interstate 70, you find yourself in Vigo County, with its 108,000 residents and its ho-hum county seat, Terre Haute, situated along the Wabash River. Terre Haute is the land of Clabber Girl Baking Powder—and its citizens call it the "Crossroads of America." It's the place where both Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and labor leader and Social Democratic Party founder Eugene Debs were born, and home to the U.S. penitentiary where the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh died.
And, in nearly every presidential election since 1888, voters here in this blue-collar county have selected the winning candidate, missing only twice: Once, in 1908, when they opted for Williams Jennings Bryan instead of William Howard Taft, and again in 1952, when they chose Adlai Stevenson rather than Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"It's obviously because of our extraordinary intelligence and good sense," said Bayh, whose father built the family's political dynasty here. "It's classic middle America. Small businesses. Family farms. Community schools. We care more about common sense results than we do about party labels and ideology. ... You don't get the excesses of New York or California. We keep it between the 40-yard-lines."
So, when it comes to 2016, you might expect these "between-the 40-yard-lines" voters to be soberly weighing the merits of Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, with maybe an occasional flirtation with Bernie Sanders or Mike Huckabee. And yet, when I spent two days traveling around its gathering places and watering holes, I discovered that, while the county's Democrats have, for their part, coalesced around Clinton, its Republicans mostly wanted to talk about just one candidate: Donald Trump.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2015, 11:07:27 PM
Nominee
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/2016-indiana-county-predicts-every-election-trump-fever-213411
Quotehe most accurate pundits in the history of American presidential politics reside far from the Beltway, on a 403-square mile patch of land along the western border of Indiana. At the intersections of U.S. Highways 40 and 41, and off Interstate 70, you find yourself in Vigo County, with its 108,000 residents and its ho-hum county seat, Terre Haute, situated along the Wabash River. Terre Haute is the land of Clabber Girl Baking Powder—and its citizens call it the "Crossroads of America." It's the place where both Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and labor leader and Social Democratic Party founder Eugene Debs were born, and home to the U.S. penitentiary where the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh died.
And, in nearly every presidential election since 1888, voters here in this blue-collar county have selected the winning candidate, missing only twice: Once, in 1908, when they opted for Williams Jennings Bryan instead of William Howard Taft, and again in 1952, when they chose Adlai Stevenson rather than Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Story Continued Below
.
.
"It's obviously because of our extraordinary intelligence and good sense," said Bayh, whose father built the family's political dynasty here. "It's classic middle America. Small businesses. Family farms. Community schools. We care more about common sense results than we do about party labels and ideology. ... You don't get the excesses of New York or California. We keep it between the 40-yard-lines."
So, when it comes to 2016, you might expect these "between-the 40-yard-lines" voters to be soberly weighing the merits of Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, with maybe an occasional flirtation with Bernie Sanders or Mike Huckabee. And yet, when I spent two days traveling around its gathering places and watering holes, I discovered that, while the county's Democrats have, for their part, coalesced around Clinton, its Republicans mostly wanted to talk about just one candidate: Donald Trump.
:bleeding:
Only Mitt Romney can unite the party and defeat Donald Trump.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 07, 2015, 11:32:17 PM
Only Mitt Romney can unite the party and defeat Donald Trump.
Mitt should acquire the GOP, reorganize the management, leverage it up and then issue an IPO so all Americans can own a share of the vaunted old party.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2015, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2015, 11:07:27 PM
Nominee
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/2016-indiana-county-predicts-every-election-trump-fever-213411
:bleeding:
You bleeding over the formatting or the content?
If the first, I've corrected it. If the second, have some more.
Quote
In America's most prophetic county seat, Trump enjoys a diverse coalition of support, from the 17-year-old punk high school student on the eve of his first election to the 81-year-old Kennedy voter to the kind of folks who will reshuffle their Thursday night plans to attend a county GOP "Politics and Pies" event. Coastal pundits might lament Trump's appeal to the "low information voter"—but I can tell you one thing: Terre Haute citizens are anything but poorly informed.
And if Trump can make it here—in this hollowed-out county of swing voters, union halls, three universities and a knot of CSX railroad lines, where voters seem to have a knack for predicting unpredictable elections—he can make it anywhere.
***
Vigo County's status as a presidential bellwether is as much of a mystery to the people here as it is to you. It's a local curiosity as inexplicable as that time a few years ago when Will Ferrell showed up here unannounced to make a series of commercials for Old Milwaukee beer, clogging the intersection of Wabash and 7th and walking aimlessly around its railroad tracks.
According to an analysis of bellwether states and counties by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, "Vigo County, Indiana is the most prominent bellwether of presidential elections in the country—voting for the winning candidate in every election from 1956 through 2012." Perhaps even more telling, noted Leip, is that the margin between how candidates fair in Vigo County and how they fair nationwide has been an average of just 4 percent over the past 124 years.
Being a bellwether in national elections doesn't mean they can predict the nominees- it kinda suggests the region is full of independents and moderates.
I expect Trump to be president.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2015, 01:03:30 AM
Being a bellwether in national elections doesn't mean they can predict the nominees- it kinda suggests the region is full of independents and moderates.
It could just mean he's attracting a crowd of people who usually aren't in for this sort of thing.
Presidential candidate and two-term president.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 08, 2015, 12:48:41 AM
You bleeding over the formatting or the content?
The content, of course. Predicting elections based on how some county you picked in hindsight managed to get it mostly right in the past is innumeracy. That's pure data dredging.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2015, 11:06:43 PM
Oh hell I don't know. I need to see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire first but damn this is one weird situation.
Agreed on that. I had thought Trump would have already fallen by now but he keeps gaining instead. And he seems to gain the more that pundits, media, political opponents slam him for outlandish ideas.
I think the more interesting question is whether his views will continue to resonate after he is left this presidential race. I think it likely his positions will not soon be forgotten but will live on in the social media accounts of people like Syt's relatives and others who show up to cheer him on.
He's going to win it all!
Quote from: Legbiter on December 08, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
Presidential candidate and two-term president.
Why only two? Constitutional term limits are for those low in energy.
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2015, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on December 08, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
Presidential candidate and two-term president.
Why only two? Constitutional term limits are for those low in energy.
Yeah he will be First Consul for Life by that point.
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2015, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on December 08, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
Presidential candidate and two-term president.
Why only two? Constitutional term limits are for those low in energy.
Trump would be 70 if/when he's elected - older than Reagan when he was elected.
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2015, 11:44:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2015, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on December 08, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
Presidential candidate and two-term president.
Why only two? Constitutional term limits are for those low in energy.
Trump would be 70 if/when he's elected - older than Reagan when he was elected.
Death, like term limits, is for the low in energy.
Prepare for the eternal rule of the undead Trump!
He'll whither on the whine.
Trump won't win the Republican nomination; his support among registered Republicans will dwindle after the first couple primaries. He promised not to run as a third party candidate; but I'm not so sure. He seems to be having an awful lot of fun with his candidacy. I'm not sure he'll be willing to give that up.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2015, 12:56:51 PM
He seems to be having an awful lot of fun with his candidacy. I'm not sure he'll be willing to give that up.
In fact, just looking at the stories on CNN.com today:
After call to ban Muslims, is the GOP ready to unite against Trump? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-republicans-2016/index.html)
Trump warns: 'Many more World Trade Centers' (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-ban-muslims/index.html)
Paul Ryan: Trump comments not 'who we are as a party' (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/paul-ryan-trump-comments-not-who-we-are-as-a-party/index.html)
Donald Trump's 9/11 celebration claims, debunked (http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/08/donald-trump-911-new-jersey-celebration-muslim-false-fact-check-orig.cnn)
J.K. Rowling says Trump is worse than Voldemort (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/jk-rowling-donald-trump-voldemort/index.html)
You cannot buy publicity like this. ISIS doesn't have this many stories about them posted.
I guess his mommy and daddy never taught him the difference between good attention and bad attention. :(
;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2015, 02:01:32 PM
I guess his mommy and daddy never taught him the difference between good attention and bad attention. :(
;)
He and ISIS aren't so different after all.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2015, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2015, 02:01:32 PM
I guess his mommy and daddy never taught him the difference between good attention and bad attention. :(
;)
He and ISIS aren't so different after all.
They are mutual reinforcing evils.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2015, 01:05:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2015, 12:56:51 PM
He seems to be having an awful lot of fun with his candidacy. I'm not sure he'll be willing to give that up.
In fact, just looking at the stories on CNN.com today:
After call to ban Muslims, is the GOP ready to unite against Trump? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-republicans-2016/index.html)
Trump warns: 'Many more World Trade Centers' (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-ban-muslims/index.html)
Paul Ryan: Trump comments not 'who we are as a party' (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/paul-ryan-trump-comments-not-who-we-are-as-a-party/index.html)
Donald Trump's 9/11 celebration claims, debunked (http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/08/donald-trump-911-new-jersey-celebration-muslim-false-fact-check-orig.cnn)
J.K. Rowling says Trump is worse than Voldemort (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/jk-rowling-donald-trump-voldemort/index.html)
You cannot buy publicity like this.
Trump also managed to troll the White House into making cracks about his hair. :showoff:
QuoteEarnest's condemnation of the Republican 2016 front-runner, which marked his sharpest criticism yet of the New York businessman, included a description of Trump comparing him to "a carnival barker" who engages in ""vacuous sloganeering" and sports "fake hair."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/08/white-house-says-trumps-anti-muslim-policy-disqualifies-him-from-serving-as-president/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/08/white-house-says-trumps-anti-muslim-policy-disqualifies-him-from-serving-as-president/)
Leads to another question: Could America survive a Trump presidency?
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 08, 2015, 03:23:33 PM
Leads to another question: Could America survive a Trump presidency?
Better yet. Is an America that votes for a Trump presidency worth saving?
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 08, 2015, 03:23:33 PM
Leads to another question: Could America survive a Trump presidency?
Après lui le déluge :frog:
;)
While I think electing Trump would be a colossal mistake; I do think the US would survive his presidency.
Has that electoral statistician said anything about Trump's chances? Last election you couldn't get away from the guy; this year he seems AWOL.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2015, 04:49:48 PM
Has that electoral statistician said anything about Trump's chances? Last election you couldn't get away from the guy; this year he seems AWOL.
Nate Silver is still quite bearish on Trump's chances.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-wont-win-just-because-more-voters-are-paying-attention/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
And I still think his chances are pretty much negative. He's "winning" by being at 27% in the polls, but largely because his opposition is still quite large and fractured. Trump's negatives are still enormous. It's hard to think he'll gain much support from the supporters of other candidates. As others drop out I tend to think the Anyone-But-Trump support will coalesce around someone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2015, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 08, 2015, 03:23:33 PM
Leads to another question: Could America survive a Trump presidency?
Better yet. Is an America that votes for a Trump presidency worth saving?
:( :weep:
Oh great, he's sticking his oar in about London now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35037007 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35037007)
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12347840_1028367733871590_1419011509527015182_n.png?oh=cf090d5a05fdb276469c2e2d4b876498&oe=5720C542)
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12316436_1028367730538257_1975615151836104366_n.png?oh=7d1b57eb957476b427d59358f619d2ab&oe=571F3F09)
Hate it when ignorant Americans go on about sharia law, police no go zones.
1: Im under the impression there are much more dangerous places in American cities.
2: the real reason many of these poor ethnic areas are dodgy is not the religious locals, they're usually quite nice, but the white lightning chugging rowdy teens.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 08, 2015, 12:56:51 PM
Trump won't win the Republican nomination; his support among registered Republicans will dwindle after the first couple primaries. He promised not to run as a third party candidate; but I'm not so sure. He seems to be having an awful lot of fun with his candidacy. I'm not sure he'll be willing to give that up.
The other problem he is going to have is that he will have little to go back to. NBC isn't going to give him a show back, and he will find it tough to get similar platforms after this campaign. The price you pay for going all in on the "racist piece of shit" persona in a presidential campaign.
So what you are saying Tyr is that Trump is right but for the wrong reasons?
Jaronimo, do you work 2nd shift? Or graveyard?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2015, 04:56:41 AM
Jaronimo, do you work 2nd shift? Or graveyard?
I work a split shift. I work from late morning to early evening and then again at night. (usually something like 11-4 / 10-3)
What job do you have, Jaronicus?
I don't think there are any no go areas for the police in Britain. We've only had one policeman die in the line of duty in two last two years
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/trump-may-have-more-support-than-we-think/419370/?utm_source=SFFB
QuoteThe Polls May Be Underestimating Trump's Support
Donald Trump's persistent lead in the GOP presidential-preference polls has been a great source of confusion for the chattering classes. But Trump is actually just the latest manifestation of a more global trend: Data suggests the appeal of anti-immigrant policies to working-class voters is much deeper than most American elites want to believe. And because Trump draws the bulk of his support from less-educated, working- and middle-class voters, he may be positioned to do even better still—for now. Polling data from Europe shows that parties with similar voter profiles to Trump's consistently do better in both online polls and at the ballot box than in live-interview polling. And currently Trump is far ahead online.
Why does this happen? It starts with working-class voters across developed countries being under severe economic pressure because of competition with foreigners at home (immigration) and abroad (EU/trade). They respond to people and parties who tell them this state of affairs isn't inevitable, and they are often impervious to cries of racism. Their lives are just plain harder than they used to be and working-class voters don't see elites doing much—or wanting to do much—to make them better. Donald Trump is simply the American version of Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, and many other European leaders of working-class, anti-immigrant parties who profit from stoking the flames of resentment because there is so much kindling available to light.
So what explains the chasm between these particular candidates' online versus live polling data? It turns out that a nontrivial share of these same working-class, anti-immigrant voters won't tell a live person who they support but will share their true feelings when their support is secret—like on Election Day. This is no surprise: Support for immigration and globalization are perhaps the only political sentiments that unite elites from both business and the academy, from right and left. Openly supporting an anti-immigration candidate can risk social opprobrium, ridicule, or worse. In other words, for every group of vocal Trump supporters, there are probably a lot more who just don't advertise it.
One example comes from the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, which rose to prominence in the run-up to this May's general election on a staunchly anti-immigrant and anti-EU platform. Polls there showed that at its height, online and automated polls gave UKIP a third higher level of support (16 percent) than did live-interview phone polls (12 percent). UKIP's support dropped as Election Day neared, but this online/live-polling gap was evident even in the final polls before Election Day. The final polls from the country's major online pollsters gave UKIP an average of 14 percent while the phone pollsters gave the party slightly over 11 percent. (The actual results split the difference between the two modes, as UKIP candidates received 12.7 percent of the vote.)
Anti-immigration, working-class parties elsewhere also do better in online polls. Current Swedish polls are divided by mode, too: Two prominent Internet pollsters show the virulently anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats leading with about 27 percent while other live pollsters show it in third place with about 19 percent. Plus, these anti-immigrant parties also typically outperform their final polling averages when the votes are counted. Both the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People's Party outperformed their respective final-polling averages by about 3 percent in those countries' most recent general elections, while the True Finns did about 1 percent better at the voting booth than in the polls.
Which is why Trump is on track to do much better than many of his detractors think; he'll likely be much closer to the Internet and automated polls, where his lead is in the double digits, than the live polls, where his lead is still in the single digits.
This doesn't mean Trump is on his way to the nomination. Public Policy Polling, an automated robocall pollster, consistently poses hypothetical one-on-one matchups between Trump and other GOP candidates. Though Trump regularly trashes Jeb Bush, Trump loses or runs roughly even with Bush in the Public Policy Polling one-on-ones. And it's the same with all the other Republican candidates. Even when poll respondents are assured anonymity, there is simply a hard ceiling of support an anti-immigrant candidate can receive. When the field is more limited, Trump loses his edge. (General-election polls also show Trump does worse against the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton than other leading Republican contenders do.)
European election results confirm this observation as well. The anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party, for example, received a record-high share of the votes in this October's general election, nearly 30 percent. But that was in the Swiss lower house, the National Council, where seats are awarded via proportional representation. The Swiss Senate, the Council of States, awards two seats per canton, and winners must typically win runoff elections between two final candidates. The Swiss People's Party gained no seats in the Council of States despite their rise in popularity, because voters from the left, right, and center ultimately coalesced to support candidates from more mainstream parties.
American elites must understand that Trump's appeal is large and not going away. Working-class voters all over the world are legitimately upset about the turn their lives have taken in the last decade and a half. They are largely not racists, nor are they "fruitcakes and loonies," as British Prime Minister David Cameron once called UKIP backers. And whether Trump's support strengthens or fades, the real issue remains: Millions of working-class voters are angry, and their anger is not going to quickly disappear even if their current champion does.
I dunno, I think Trump parrots too much of the general Republican platform to be a solid choice for disgruntled working class folks. Sure, he wants to protect their jobs from foreigners, but he also wants to give their bosses tax cuts and cut government programs. I don't think the Euro far right parties are nearly as capitalist as Trump/GOP.
And it's another Trumptastic day on CNN:
Donald Trump counters condemnation with a warning (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-warning/index.html)
Trump on Muslims: The world reacts (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/world/trump-muslim-global-reaction/index.html)
Philadelphia mayor: Donald Trump is an a**hole (http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/08/philadelphia-mayor-michael-nutter-donald-trump-muslims-sot.wpvi/video/playlists/donald-trump-muslims/)
Why Ted Cruz won't slam Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-disagreed/index.html)
Today's 5 things: If you prick Trump, does he not bleed? No, not really. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/us/new-day-five-things/index.html)
There are many many legal problems with Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-travel-ban-5-qs/index.html)
Donald Trump talks 'independent' run again (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-independent-election-2016/index.html)
Donald Trump wants to 'close up' the Internet (http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/technology/donald-trump-internet/)
Eight unique stories, in addition to the five I posted yesterday. There's no estate like the fourth estate.
If the media has little credibility then it generating lots of butthurt clickbait is going to cement Trump even more.
The media would love a Trump presidency :lol:
They just seem very salty about Trump.
Like, OMG, I can't even, wow, JUST WOW salty. :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on December 08, 2015, 11:28:25 PM
Hate it when ignorant Americans go on about sharia law, police no go zones.
1: Im under the impression there are much more dangerous places in American cities.
2: the real reason many of these poor ethnic areas are dodgy is not the religious locals, they're usually quite nice, but the white lightning chugging rowdy teens.
Why is it ok when ignorant people from other countries go on about it? :angry:
Quote from: Legbiter on December 09, 2015, 10:04:34 AM
They just seem very salty about Trump.
Like, OMG, I can't even, wow, JUST WOW salty. :lol:
I think they are just frustrated they cannot seem to influence anybody. 'We will DESTROY Trump and secure glory for Mark Rubio!'
Lots of people do not read the mainstream press anymore, they have found their comfy little echo chamber.
Watch the facial expressions of Carol Costello on CNN and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC when the Trump is on. Hilarious. The disgust oozes out.
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
They are there but Trump's supporters would not listen, they have their own people to listen to. The media is fragmented and people drift to who they want to hear. So some courageous newsman sounding the alarm is going to get lost in the noise.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2015, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
They are there but Trump's supporters would not listen, they have their own people to listen to. The media is fragmented and people drift to who they want to hear. So some courageous newsman sounding the alarm is going to get lost in the noise.
Which is why I ask, where are the Edward R. Morrows of today. There a none. The media has been so widely discredited - and for good reason given their turn to entertainment as news - that there does not appear to be anyone left in American media with the gravitas of a Morrow.
One of the dangers of democracy is once in a while a Cleon or Alcibiades will appear and take you on a damn fool crusade.
I thought an "opprobrium" was a type of pre-cambrian fossil.
Maybe he thinks his surname along is enough to win any argument.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 12:26:39 PM
Which is why I ask, where are the Edward R. Morrows of today. There a none. The media has been so widely discredited - and for good reason given their turn to entertainment as news - that there does not appear to be anyone left in American media with the gravitas of a Morrow.
There cannot be a modern Murrow because there is no modern oligopoly in the broadcast news business. Murrow was a product of the news media of his day, as were his peers (Cronkite, Severeid, etc). The Edward R. Murrows of today are out there, but you aren't listening to them.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2015, 07:33:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 12:26:39 PM
Which is why I ask, where are the Edward R. Morrows of today. There a none. The media has been so widely discredited - and for good reason given their turn to entertainment as news - that there does not appear to be anyone left in American media with the gravitas of a Morrow.
There cannot be a modern Murrow because there is no modern oligopoly in the broadcast news business. Murrow was a product of the news media of his day, as were his peers (Cronkite, Severeid, etc). The Edward R. Murrows of today are out there, but you aren't listening to them.
Ok, share with the class. Who do you have in mind?
He's got a point. News was nearly a monopoly back then.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2015, 10:23:15 AM
Watch the facial expressions of Carol Costello on CNN and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC when the Trump is on. Hilarious. The disgust oozes out.
I'd bang Mika.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2015, 08:41:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2015, 10:23:15 AM
Watch the facial expressions of Carol Costello on CNN and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC when the Trump is on. Hilarious. The disgust oozes out.
I'd bang Mika.
You can have her. She's a cunt.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2015, 08:31:23 PM
He's got a point. News was nearly a monopoly back then.
Yeah I was trying to explain that to CC earlier. Even if there was a Murrow, and I think there are, they will get lost in the noise. News is way too fragmented to have that sort of impact anymore.
And if you're like me I'm sure you're wondering what has Donald Trump done since yesterday. Let's check in at CNN.com and see:
How would a Trump independent bid work? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-2016-independent-presidential-campaign/index.html)
Israel: Trump to meet with Netanyahu December 28 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/donald-trump-israel-trip/index.html)
Trump 'postpones' Israel trip after Netanyahu criticism (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-postpones-israel-trip/index.html)1.
The media unload on Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-media-backlash/index.html)2.
How Trump and Cruz are trying to win the Iowa caucuses (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-caucus-ground-game/index.html)
Obama denounces 'bigotry' in veiled shot at Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/president-obama-donald-trump-bigotry/index.html)
Petition to ban Trump from UK passes 300K, could be debated in Parliament (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/uk-donald-trump-ban-petition/index.html)
Know whose ideas about Muslims are scarier than Trump's? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/obeidallah-trump-muslims/index.html)
Donald Trump is a huge embarrassment for America (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/ghitis-world-views-on-trump/index.html)
Is Donald Trump a fascist? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/bergen-is-trump-fascist/index.html)
Is there evidence of Trump-Clinton conspiracy? (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/09/donald-trump-conspiracy-theory-foreman-dnt-lead.cnn)
Donald Trump, too much is never enough
1.) Oops, guess that didn't work out.
2.) Thanks media, you're doing a fantastic job stopping Donald Trump
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
If you look at old newspapers, 19th and early 20th century, it wasn't always about facts either.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2015, 08:31:23 PM
He's got a point. News was nearly a monopoly back then.
There may be someone with the ability of Murrow now but can any of us identify that person? Do they have the voice and influence of Murrow. No chance of that and in this world of news as entertainment it is very unlikely anyone ever will.
Quote from: viper37 on December 10, 2015, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
If you look at old newspapers, 19th and early 20th century, it wasn't always about facts either.
That's why Grumbler's quibble doesn't make particular sense and why Murrow was and is still a standout.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 10, 2015, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I didn't want to start of a fourth thread about Trump. But I think this puts a lot of focus on the failing of the news media. Since the start of the 24 news channels (and perhaps some time before) news has become more about entertainment to fill content requirements. And Trump as entertainment sells. But where are the Edward R. Morrows who can effectively take on the demagogue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
If you look at old newspapers, 19th and early 20th century, it wasn't always about facts either.
That's why Grumbler's quibble doesn't make particular sense and why Murrow was and is still a standout.
Nah I think he is right on. I guess if there was a Murrow these days it would have to come out of PBS but those guys try to keep the editorializing down. And actually Viper's statement does not even address the issue Grumbler and I were bringing up. Murrow was a TV guy back (and Radio before that) when there were very few TV channels. I don't think he did newspapers much...
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
It was always entertainment, that was what Viper was saying.
But there was, and still are, plenty of individuals who take news reporting very seriously. But news is too fragmented for there to be somebody with the gravitas of Murrow around who can influence things all by himself. But thanks for being a total ass and trash talking instead.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
It was always entertainment, that was what Viper was saying.
:frusty:
Yes. And I agreed with him. That is why Murrow was a stand out and why we need someone who isn't going for the entertainment value. We now live in a world where the most insightful comments come from hosts of comedy shows.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:15:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
It was always entertainment, that was what Viper was saying.
:frusty:
Yes. And I agreed with him. That is why Murrow was a stand out and why we need someone who isn't going for the entertainment value. We now live in a world where the most insightful comments come from hosts of comedy shows.
That is pretty fucked up, isn't it?
When the retirement of John Stewart is seen as ANY kind of impact on how people get their news, that is a pretty serious problem.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:15:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
It was always entertainment, that was what Viper was saying.
:frusty:
Yes. And I agreed with him. That is why Murrow was a stand out and why we need someone who isn't going for the entertainment value. We now live in a world where the most insightful comments come from hosts of comedy shows.
That is pretty fucked up, isn't it?
When the retirement of John Stewart is seen as ANY kind of impact on how people get their news, that is a pretty serious problem.
:yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:15:35 PM
:frusty:
Yes. And I agreed with him. That is why Murrow was a stand out and why we need someone who isn't going for the entertainment value. We now live in a world where the most insightful comments come from hosts of comedy shows.
Well I disagree that is true. But they certainly get the most eyeballs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
bonus points for missing the point again. I wont bother restating it. Just go back to watching everyone give Trump all the attention he needs and wants and keep pretending all is well and news really is still news and not entertainment.
There are no shortage of editorial takes on news channels that put down donald trump. None of them are noteworthy or equivalent to Murrow because none of them have Murrow's stature, which is something you can't get today with all the fragmentation of the news media, alternative news sources, and media scrutiny.
I prefer the thread title "Wither Trump", without the "h" or the "?". :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:15:35 PM
:frusty:
Yes. And I agreed with him. That is why Murrow was a stand out and why we need someone who isn't going for the entertainment value. We now live in a world where the most insightful comments come from hosts of comedy shows.
:frusty: Bonus points for false assertions made for the sake of weaseling. Murrow wasn't a standout. Cronkite was as influential as Murrow. Severeid was almost as influential. The difference between the era of the highly influential new anchors and today isn't a difference between the types of broadcasters, but between the number of broadcasts.
And the most insightful comments in recent years came from Jon Stewart, who didn't host a "comedy show." He hosted a satirical news show.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
That is pretty fucked up, isn't it?
When the retirement of John Stewart is seen as ANY kind of impact on how people get their news, that is a pretty serious problem.
See, I disagree. There is nothing less inherently valuable about satirical as compared to non-satirical news presentations. Stewart could cover fewer stories because his methods of presentation were less "efficient," but people really remembered the stories he did cover.
Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2015, 02:29:30 PM
I prefer the thread title "Wither Trump", without the "h" or the "?". :P
But...the poor fake tan sellers :(
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2015, 02:29:30 PM
I prefer the thread title "Wither Trump", without the "h" or the "?". :P
But...the poor fake tan sellers :(
Alas! He is withering in his bloom, lost in solitary gloom.*
[*With apologies to Sharpe fans and poetry lovers ;)]
I think we do have a big problem with news. You can't just treat news as one kind of content that attracts eyeballs to watch Coca Cola ads. The health of democracy depends on the public being informed with accurate and objective news, not news that attract the most eyeballs aged 18-34. But if you treat news as a public utility, then like all public utilities, it has to be regulated and possibly funded by the government. Not quite an ideal solution in free society either.
So what do we do? :hmm:
:lol:
http://imgur.com/gallery/Ulb2XkA
I think Trump is the only person that succeeded in getting cnn, fox, and msnbc allied in hating him. Quite a feat in and of itself.
:lol:
http://distractify.com/humor/2015/12/10/mustafa-delete-trump-friends?utm_content=inf_11_53_2&tse_id=INF_13b61a61cde74db69423da353d347c57
And again from CNN.com:
10 takes on Donald Trump's Muslim proposal (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/opinions/opinion-roundup-donald-trump/index.html)
I am a Trump supporter: Voters speak out (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-supporters-speak-out/index.html)
Why Alec Baldwin wants you to listen to Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/opinions/sutter-alec-baldwin-climate-cop21/index.html)
How Ted Cruz, Donald Trump are trying to dominate Iowa (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-caucus-ground-game/index.html)
Dee Snider to Trump: I may not take it anymore (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/dee-snider-donald-trump-twisted-sister/index.html)
Poll: Voters fret Trump or Clinton in the White House (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-new-york-times-poll/index.html)
FDR's WWII sin is a shameful model for Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/brinkley-fdr-internment-trump/index.html)
The eagle that ruffled Donald Trump's feathers (http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/10/eagles-vs-trump-pkg-moos-erin.cnn)
Perhaps its time to reconsider the first amendment...
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2015, 02:35:23 PM
And the most insightful comments in recent years came from Jon Stewart, who didn't host a "comedy show." He hosted a satirical news show.
:lol:
Oh wait, you were really trying to argue that Stewart's show was a news show.
It was pretty informative, assuming you can tell when he was joking.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 11, 2015, 11:31:11 AM
It was pretty informative, assuming you can tell when he was joking.
Yeah, well that is the point. People started getting their news from a comedy show - news as entertainment and entertainment as news.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2015, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 11, 2015, 11:31:11 AM
It was pretty informative, assuming you can tell when he was joking.
Yeah, well that is the point. People started getting their news from a comedy show - news as entertainment and entertainment as news.
Because getting it from the news shows was almost physically painful they were so stupid. Besides I don't see the sin in delivering information in a non-boring way.
Though I usually watched Lehrer myself.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 11, 2015, 11:31:11 AM
It was pretty informative, assuming you can tell when he was joking.
That's how satire works when it works. There
are people who are a bit too slow to know the difference between satirical news shows and comedy shows, but I don't think many of them watched Stewart's show - and none of those types understood it if they did watch it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 11:59:44 AM
Because getting it from the news shows was almost physically painful they were so stupid. Besides I don't see the sin in delivering information in a non-boring way.
Though I usually watched Lehrer myself.
Nothing wrong with Stewart - I think he did a great job. Can't speak to Lehrer as I didn't watch him.
Still, I think that when the news are curated with an eye towards generating laughs, it tends to skew perception of what is important in the public discourse. Of course, you could argue that much of the "non-laugh" news reporting is done with an eye towards generating outrage, which likely has a similar result. In fact, the things that generate laughs and the things that generate outrage are probably pretty close in substance, with only a minor change in presentation since mostly about a slightly different change in reaction to absurdity (at least judging on Stewart and John Oliver). Now whether this is a cause or an effect of the present general polarization of political discourse, I'm not sure about.
None of that, of course, absolve regular news from being boring.
I think Stewart and his writers at their best sought out significant news stories and then mined them for the comic implications - as opposed to simply looking for comical situations that may or may not have been truly newsworthy - that's one thing that differentiated his show from predecessors.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2015, 12:21:26 PM
I think Stewart and his writers at their best sought out significant news stories and then mined them for the comic implications - as opposed to simply looking for comical situations that may or may not have been truly newsworthy - that's one thing that differentiated his show from predecessors.
Yeah, I concur. Though my main point is that when you mine the stories for comical situations, by necessity you'll be discarding a number of things that while non-comical nonetheless are newsworthy from a news/ public-interest point of view.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2015, 12:16:01 PM
None of that, of course, absolve regular news from being boring.
It is the combination of being both dumbed down and boring that just kills me.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2015, 12:24:12 PM
Yeah, I concur. Though my main point is that when you mine the stories for comical situations, by necessity you'll be discarding a number of things that while non-comical nonetheless are newsworthy from a news/ public-interest point of view.
That's what i was talking about when I said satire was a less "efficient" way to do news.
Still, people who claimed that Stewart was their main news source scored higher in knowledge of current events than did those who named any other main source, because the satirical style makes the issues presented so much more memorable. I don't think Stewart could ever match the most influential newscast in US history (not Murrow's excellent 30-min piece on McCarthy, but Cronkite's 3-minute piece on Vietnam in 1968), but i'd be interested in using a time machine to test CE knowledge of Cronkite's viewers to Stewart's.
Quote from: Jacob on December 07, 2015, 07:31:19 PM
What do you think? Where will Trump be at when the time comes to vote?
Trump will be the next President.
Americans are tired of the liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
The liberal control of academia, the educational system and the mainstream media has back fired and provoked a rebellion.
Don't believe the polls. Trump is far more ahead in reality than the polling companies claim.
The liberals are using polling to shape opinion.
Then the week before election they start to report the real numbers so it doesn't appear as if they were wrong in their polling data.
I hope Siege is right.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 02:17:35 PM
I hope Siege is right.
I am almost always right.
I don't even remember the last time I was wrong.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 02:17:35 PM
I hope Siege is right.
I am almost always right.
I don't even remember the last time I was wrong.
I do. In fact, I remember the last 28 times you were wrong. But lets see if you are serious, you want to put money down?
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:16:00 PM
Trump will be the next President.
Americans are tired of the liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
The liberal control of academia, the educational system and the mainstream media has back fired and provoked a rebellion.
Don't believe the polls. Trump is far more ahead in reality than the polling companies claim.
The liberals are using polling to shape opinion.
Then the week before election they start to report the real numbers so it doesn't appear as if they were wrong in their polling data.
I read some of the comments on a few articles on www.nationalreview.com and I got to say the comments definitely match what you're saying. It's scary.
500 bucks that Trump is not President elect this time next year. Any takers?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM
500 bucks that Trump is not President elect this time next year. Any takers?
What odds are you offering?
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2015, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM
500 bucks that Trump is not President elect this time next year. Any takers?
What odds are you offering?
Even.
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 02:17:35 PM
I hope Siege is right.
I am almost always right.
I don't even remember the last time I was wrong.
Siege, you will be saying Madame President.
20.00 on the table.
Nice :lol:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=harrison%20ford%20trump&view=detail&&&mid=24680E94CA1D097B2C5F24680E94CA1D097B2C5F&rvsmid=60C0066E013D0A248C7460C0066E013D0A248C74&fsscr=-1485
Quote from: Siege on December 11, 2015, 02:16:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 07, 2015, 07:31:19 PM
What do you think? Where will Trump be at when the time comes to vote?
Trump will be the next President.
Americans are tired of the liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
The liberal control of academia, the educational system and the mainstream media has back fired and provoked a rebellion.
Don't believe the polls. Trump is far more ahead in reality than the polling companies claim.
The liberals are using polling to shape opinion.
Then the week before election they start to report the real numbers so it doesn't appear as if they were wrong in their polling data.
Ok here is the thing I do not get: how is the country being destroyed? It seems like it is going pretty well.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:13:03 PM
500 bucks that Trump is not President elect this time next year. Any takers?
Put up or shut up Siege.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2015, 10:25:27 PM
Nice :lol:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=harrison%20ford%20trump&view=detail&&&mid=24680E94CA1D097B2C5F24680E94CA1D097B2C5F&rvsmid=60C0066E013D0A248C7460C0066E013D0A248C74&fsscr=-1485
:lol:
That was pretty good.
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
On the other hand, someone simply not want to join the languish gambling syndicate.
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2015, 04:11:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
On the other hand, someone simply not want to join the languish gambling syndicate.
I already mentioned bullshit.
That's not bullshit though. Not everyone enjoys gambling.
Not to mention, having to give someone online your address.
I agree, the whole "Wanna bet?" is juvenile. Of all places, I'd think us Languishites would simply be satisified with the smug haughtiness of being right. :P
Quote from: Syt on December 09, 2015, 08:19:49 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/trump-may-have-more-support-than-we-think/419370/?utm_source=SFFB
QuoteThe Polls May Be Underestimating Trump's Support
Donald Trump's persistent lead in the GOP presidential-preference polls has been a great source of confusion for the chattering classes. But Trump is actually just the latest manifestation of a more global trend: Data suggests the appeal of anti-immigrant policies to working-class voters is much deeper than most American elites want to believe. And because Trump draws the bulk of his support from less-educated, working- and middle-class voters, he may be positioned to do even better still—for now. Polling data from Europe shows that parties with similar voter profiles to Trump's consistently do better in both online polls and at the ballot box than in live-interview polling. And currently Trump is far ahead online.
Why does this happen? It starts with working-class voters across developed countries being under severe economic pressure because of competition with foreigners at home (immigration) and abroad (EU/trade). They respond to people and parties who tell them this state of affairs isn't inevitable, and they are often impervious to cries of racism. Their lives are just plain harder than they used to be and working-class voters don't see elites doing much—or wanting to do much—to make them better. Donald Trump is simply the American version of Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, and many other European leaders of working-class, anti-immigrant parties who profit from stoking the flames of resentment because there is so much kindling available to light.
So what explains the chasm between these particular candidates' online versus live polling data? It turns out that a nontrivial share of these same working-class, anti-immigrant voters won't tell a live person who they support but will share their true feelings when their support is secret—like on Election Day. This is no surprise: Support for immigration and globalization are perhaps the only political sentiments that unite elites from both business and the academy, from right and left. Openly supporting an anti-immigration candidate can risk social opprobrium, ridicule, or worse. In other words, for every group of vocal Trump supporters, there are probably a lot more who just don't advertise it.
We better hope this is wrong, because if Trump sustains recent gains he's going to romp to the nomination. For a long time Trump was averaging in the high 20s in the live telephone phones and mid 30s in the online polls, but he's now starting to hit the mid 30s in some live polls and the low 40s in online polls. If he's really around 40% nationally he will sweep the early states and become unstoppable.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!mindate=2015-06-01&estimate=custom
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
It doesn't--in addition to what others have posted, even if Siege is 100% certain Trump will win, is willing to stake his life savings on that knowledge, doesn't mind sending Raz his home address, and is sure Raz will pay up, he would still be stupid to take the bet because he could get much better odds elsewhere.
He might take Bravo's bet though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 12, 2015, 06:20:14 AM
We better hope this is wrong, because if Trump sustains recent gains he's going to romp to the nomination. For a long time Trump was averaging in the high 20s in the live telephone phones and mid 30s in the online polls, but he's now starting to hit the mid 30s in some live polls and the low 40s in online polls. If he's really around 40% nationally he will sweep the early states and become unstoppable.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary#!mindate=2015-06-01&estimate=custom
Well, the GOP establishment could always run third party. Put Jeb! on the ticket.
Here's what betting people on PredictIt think about the election:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfAxAa6a.png&hash=e6817e9fcb9b54a34a2b3df1a86f76844b3ccdb8)
You can see who I've put money on. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 12, 2015, 05:13:39 AM
Not to mention, having to give someone online your address.
Why would you have to do that?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 12, 2015, 05:13:39 AM
Not to mention, having to give someone online your address.
You can email money transfers.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 12, 2015, 08:10:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
It doesn't--in addition to what others have posted, even if Siege is 100% certain Trump will win, is willing to stake his life savings on that knowledge, doesn't mind sending Raz his home address, and is sure Raz will pay up, he would still be stupid to take the bet because he could get much better odds elsewhere.
Come into the 21st century.
500 bucks is a life savings bet????? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 12, 2015, 08:10:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2015, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
Well, yeah, only the idle rich or the completely mad would take that bet. The point is to suss out Siege who is all talk.
:yes: Bets talk, bullshit walks. It's amazing how even nominal bet amounts can stop bullshitters dead in their tracks.
It doesn't--in addition to what others have posted, even if Siege is 100% certain Trump will win, is willing to stake his life savings on that knowledge, doesn't mind sending Raz his home address, and is sure Raz will pay up, he would still be stupid to take the bet because he could get much better odds elsewhere.
If he's that hard up for cash I can lower to fifty. I'm not a gambling man, but betting that Trump won't be President is not really a bet.
Only five articles today on CNN.com that mention the Donald by name. Could this be the end of Trump?
GOP establishment worries about Cruz-Trump showdown (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-republican-establishment/index.html)
How Donald Trump took the Republican Party by storm (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-history/index.html)
Cruz cites 'Flashdance' in Trump maniac jab (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/13/politics/trump-cruz-twitter/index.html)
Poll: Clinton beating Trump, Cruz but not Rubio (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-match-up-hillary-clinton/index.html)
What Trump will do at Tuesday's debate (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/opinions/dantonio-trump-debate/index.html)
:lmfao:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/14/the-donald-s-trumped-up-medical-report.html
Quote
DR. STRANGE
12.14.156:00 PM ET
Trump's Medical Report Is More Insane Than His Campaign Somehow
Donald Trump's doctor released a medical report so silly that when we asked the American Medical Association about its language, their spokesman started to laugh.
Donald Trump's doctor appears to be just as bombastic as he is.
It's the only conclusion to be drawn from a hilariously bizarre letter that the mogul's doctor—Harold Bornstein—wrote about his yuuuugely terrific health. And the letter raises as many questions as it answers.
Bornstein, a Manhattan gastroenterologist who shared a medical practice with his father, writes he has been Trump's doctor since 1980. His father, Jacob Bornstein, died in 2010 at the age of 93. But that didn't stop Trump from Twitter-thanking Bornstein the elder for writing up his letter.
"I am proud to share this health report, written by the highly respected Dr. Jacob Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital," the mogul tweeted, linking to the letter.
Trump later deleted the tweet, probably because Jacob Bornstein is dead. Harold Bornstein, however, is very much alive and says Donald Trump is the picture of health. In the letter, he describes his health over the past few decades using language that veers from standard to bizarre.
For example, he describes Trump's recent physical exam as "show[ing] only positive results."
While it's clear he means to say everything was normal, the word "positive" is an odd use of the term in medicine. Rather, it typically means that some result or finding was present—and those findings aren't always great news (think testing positive for a disease). The wording is clearly chosen more for rhetorical effect than clear medical communication—and that choice left some experts scratching their heads.
"It's very odd for a doctor to say, 'He's had a complete medical examination that showed only positive results,'" said Jonathan Moreno, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "Normally a positive result in the language of medicine is not a good thing. Nonetheless, I will not accuse Dr. Bornstein of not writing his own letter."
Bornstein also describes Trump's "laboratory test results" as "astonishingly excellent" (without noting which tests were run). That is a weird thing to say, as not many doctors would describe themselves as "astonished" at their patient's lab results.
Like Trump, Bornstein seems allergic to detail. And there's one conspicuous absence in the letter, according to Moreno: It has no mention of whether the mogul has ever had a colonoscopy. Bornstein is a gastroenterologist—not a general practitioner—so if Trump has had a colonoscopy, Bornstein probably did it. And at 69, Trump is of age to get the routine (if unpleasant) test.
"I think that's a very reasonable question at this point for a journalist to ask: Has he had a colonoscopy?" said Moreno.
If the mogul has had one, Moreno added, voters may be curious as to whether the exam found any colon polyps and, if so, if any had to be removed. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on whether the real estate magnate has had a colonoscopy or had any colon polyps removed.
The letter uses standard language to report that Trump is cancer-free and hasn't had any significant surgeries. An interesting omission, however, in a letter that goes out of its way to praise Trump's "extraordinary" strength and stamina is the status of those bone spurs that were so bad they kept him out of serving in Vietnam. Maybe they got better all on their own, as the report makes clear he's never had any orthopedic surgeries.
And then it goes completely off the rails.
"If elected," Bornstein writes, "Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."
This is, of course, hooey. It's embarrassing that a doctor even wrote it—unless, of course, Bornstein time-traveled to the 19th century to check on Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison. Reached for comment regarding this, a spokesperson at the American Medical Association just giggled.
They weren't the only ones who found the comment perplexing.
"I don't want to question Dr. Bornstein," said Jeffrey Singer, a practicing general surgeon and adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. "But doctors don't usually say that kind of thing."
"I could understand Donald Trump saying that, because that's the kind of thing he says—just like he's the smartest guy and the richest guy and all that," Singer continued. "But doctors don't usually make those kind of superlative comments."
Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump's doctor.
Now we only need to get Trump's lawyer to talk for more entertainment ;)
Some fantastic analysis of Trump's campaign. It should be noted this was released before the Monmouth poll.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-vs-modern-political-campaign
Quote
December 11, 2015
Donald Trump vs. the Modern Political Campaign
By Benjamin Wallace-Wells
On Monday night, after Donald Trump had proposed banning all Muslims from entering the United States, some journalists got around to wondering just how far that might go. One enterprising reporter from The Hill e-mailed the campaign's spokesperson, Hope Hicks, a twenty-six-year-old who has never before worked on a political campaign, to try to clarify things. What about Muslim U.S. citizens? the reporter asked. If they happened to travel abroad and then flew home to the States, would they be kept out at the border, too? Hicks wrote back serenely, "Mr Trump said, 'Everyone.' "
The next morning, Trump himself appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and said that his spokeswoman had his policy wrong. He hadn't meant everyone, after all. Muslim citizens would be allowed to come and go as they always had. Trump never explained the source of the confusion. But that his own spokeswoman got his plan wrong seemed evidence that his campaign had not discussed it in any depth. The plan to exclude Muslims was heinous. It was also so casually assembled.
Surreal little episodes like this have recurred throughout the Trump campaign. So much of it seems so casually assembled. His spokespeople appear on news programs, and yet his policies and major statements always seem to go unexplained. What is most visible in these exchanges is an atmosphere of mutual disdain. The reporters conducting the interviews are career political junkies who give the impression that they are condescending to talk to the Trump people, and the Trump people are often p.r. professionals and corporate attorneys who give the impression that they are condescending to talk politics. Basic information goes unexchanged.
When reporters pointed out that the "big, beautiful wall" Trump proposed to seal off the Mexican border would be extremely expensive, the campaign insisted that Trump was a great negotiator, and would get a better price. Pressed about how immigration officials would determine whether an applicant was Muslim, Trump said that the officers could simply ask, "Are you Muslim?" After Trump claimed that "thousands" of Muslims had cheered the collapse of the Twin Towers from New Jersey, Jake Tapper hosted the candidate's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen on CNN and asked him to provide some evidence. "I've worked for Mr. Trump now for a long time," Cohen said. "I can tell you Mr Trump's memory is fantastic, and I've never come across a situation where Mr. Trump has said something that is not accurate." Tapper started to parry, then collected himself. "Seriously?" he said. Seriously, it turned out.
It has been a long time since we worried about demagogues on the campaign trail. When we talk about politics, we talk more about systems than we once did, and less about human attributes and failings. The machinery of the Obama campaign in particular has been celebrated as a cultural force on its own, separate from the candidate: microtargeting, the science of persuasion, the victory lab.
Just within the past few days, there's been a murmur of anxiety from political professionals, perhaps sensing in Trump the possibility that their own jobs might become obsolete. On Wednesday, Lloyd Grove, of The Daily Beast, published a report titled "How Donald Trump Destroyed the Political Campaign Ad," featuring dark quotes from the pros. Trump seemed to threaten retail politics, too. Earlier in the week, the Times wondered, "What if Going Viral Matters More Than Iowa?" A Republican operative in New Hampshire complained to Politico, "The lesson for future candidates will be, I don't need to troop all over Grafton County in the North Country. I just need to hang out in a cable TV green room and wait for my next cable hit."
From a certain reptilian perspective—from the angle that most closely considers Trump—the whole machinery of the modern campaign serves to constrain an individual candidate's ability to chase votes. Seeking donors requires promoting an economic vision that turns off working-class voters. Winning the favor of élites means presenting detailed policies to show that you are a serious candidate, but policies are trade-offs, and each will alienate someone. Employing political professionals, who will want jobs with other candidates in the future, lessens the likelihood that your campaign will scorch the earth—by demonizing an ethnic group, for instance—in order to win. If the pros sound a little jealous of Trump, it's because he raises the alluring, impossible alternative. What if they could just opt out?
No one knows what Trump's chances at the nomination really are—at this time in 2011, Newt Gingrich was still leading the Republican field—but the support that he has seems solid. His own core will not leave him. The latest CBS News/Times national poll —which was conducted mostly, but not entirely, before Trump announced his proposal to ban Muslim immigrants—found that thirty-five per cent of likely Republican primary voters preferred Trump, more than twice the number who favored Ted Cruz, who is currently in second place. The most recent public poll in New Hampshire, published Tuesday, puts Trump at thirty-two per cent, and the second-place candidate, Marco Rubio, at fourteen per cent. Trump is trailing Cruz in Iowa, but barely, and in South Carolina he is leading, too. Fox News pollsters were in the field there when Trump proposed the ban, and they found that his support climbed even higher (eight per cent higher) after the news broke.
On Tuesday night, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz held a focus group of twenty-nine Trump supporters from the Washington, D.C., area, which he opened to the media, and found that their allegiance was at least as strong to Trump as it was to the party. Nineteen said that they would back Trump as a third-party candidate if Rubio was the Republican nominee; fourteen said that they would do so if the nominee was Ted Cruz. Viewing footage of Trump's gaffes and insults only seemed to increase their enthusiasm for him. "I've never seen anything like this," Luntz said. "There's no sign of them leaving. He has created or found the magic formula."
A more specific thing to say is that he has found the magic voter. The most compelling demographic analysis of Trump's support is that he is leaning on the "missing white voter," a type first identified by the analyst Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, just after Obama defeated Romney. Trende concluded that seven million fewer white people had voted in the 2012 election than had in 2008, and that the missing voters had certain identifiable characteristics. They were more rural than suburban, poorer rather than richer, and less rather than more religious. White voters in the South turned out just as strongly in 2012 as they had four years earlier, and so did evangelicals. The missing voters were from the Midwest, the Northeast, the red parts of blue states. "In other words," Trende wrote, "H. Ross Perot voters."
There's probably no organizing genius to the Trump campaign. But maybe there's a kind of accidental genius. That Trump had opted out of the machinery of the modern campaign freed him to chase a group of voters who were traditionally hard to reach. With no need for donors, he could go all in on economic nationalism; with no inclination to woo party élites, he could simply decline to assemble policy proposals; and with no aspirations ever to run again, he could demonize multiple minority groups. (One way to read this last sequence is as a logical escalation: he targeted Hispanics, saw his poll numbers soar, and then targeted another group that was less popular—Muslims.) Early in his campaign, Trump sometimes seemed to be polling the people who turned up at his rallies. "How many people here believe in global warming?" he asked the crowd at a New Hampshire event I attended in September, apropos of nothing. Then he waited to see how many hands rose. "Very few," he said to himself, approvingly. "Very few."
A darkly comic possibility looms. Awaiting the Republican nominee is arguably the most controlled campaign in recent American history, Hillary Clinton's, which is now preparing for the contingency of a contest with Trump. What will her feverish people make of his? Somewhere in Brooklyn, a miserable former Rhodes scholar is surely trying to prepare a briefing book on Trump's policies on transportation and infrastructure, which do not really exist. Maybe a Yale 2L is operating a spreadsheet that lists alleged connections between Trump and the Mob. Possibly Bob Barnett, the Washington superlawyer who traditionally impersonates the Republican opponent to help the Democratic nominee prepare for the debates, has been polishing his Trump impression. Or maybe Trump has made that political job obsolete, too, and the Clinton campaign will just hire Andrew Dice Clay.
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2015, 11:21:24 PM
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Hard to believe this guy is leading the polls in Southern states. :huh:
Little Boy Blue - He needed the money.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 14, 2015, 11:41:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2015, 11:21:24 PM
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Hard to believe this guy is leading the polls in Southern states. :huh:
It really reminds me of Rob Ford of Toronto. Everyone knows he's an asshole, but there are enough people who enjoy that kind of asshole - especially because it upsets the kind of people who think they're smart and good and shit like that.
Rob Ford has kind of an everymanishness about his assholery though. Trump is a brash, arrogant New Yorker who thinks he's smarter than everybody he meets. Doesn't usually play well down here.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 15, 2015, 01:04:10 AM
Rob Ford has kind of an everymanishness about his assholery though. Trump is a brash, arrogant New Yorker who thinks he's smarter than everybody he meets. Doesn't usually play well down here.
I guess it's a sense that he's even more dismissive of and obnoxious to the "liberal elites" and the "DC insiders" than of the people down there?
I dunno.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2015, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 14, 2015, 11:41:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2015, 11:21:24 PM
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Hard to believe this guy is leading the polls in Southern states. :huh:
It really reminds me of Rob Ford of Toronto. Everyone knows he's an asshole, but there are enough people who enjoy that kind of asshole - especially because it upsets the kind of people who think they're smart and good and shit like that.
I don't know about that comparison. Rob Ford at least had a political history and consistency. He was a 10 year city councillor who made his mark endlessly complaining about excessive city spending. GIven the other candidates I could imagine myself voting for Ford in 2010 based on what we knew about him.
None of thta is true about Trump.
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2015, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 14, 2015, 11:41:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2015, 11:21:24 PM
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Hard to believe this guy is leading the polls in Southern states. :huh:
It really reminds me of Rob Ford of Toronto. Everyone knows he's an asshole, but there are enough people who enjoy that kind of asshole - especially because it upsets the kind of people who think they're smart and good and shit like that.
I don't know about that comparison. Rob Ford at least had a political history and consistency. He was a 10 year city councillor who made his mark endlessly complaining about excessive city spending. GIven the other candidates I could imagine myself voting for Ford in 2010 based on what we knew about him.
None of thta is true about Trump.
I agree, it isn't a fair comparison - to Ford.
Ford was a one-note candidate, but his one note was 'cutting spending', not being offensive to minorities (in fact, he often got along rather well with some of 'em - at least, the ones with substance abuse problems in common ;) ). He was a boor, a drunk and a druggie, who while in office went entertainingly off the rails, but no-one speculated that he was an honest to God fascist.
I guess they are similar in that they both boorishly troll, but Ford was more of a joke (albeit a sad one, in his self-destruction). Trump has long ago ceased to be funny.
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2015, 01:41:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2015, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2015, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 14, 2015, 11:41:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2015, 11:21:24 PM
Andrew Dice Clay :lmfao:
Hard to believe this guy is leading the polls in Southern states. :huh:
It really reminds me of Rob Ford of Toronto. Everyone knows he's an asshole, but there are enough people who enjoy that kind of asshole - especially because it upsets the kind of people who think they're smart and good and shit like that.
I don't know about that comparison. Rob Ford at least had a political history and consistency. He was a 10 year city councillor who made his mark endlessly complaining about excessive city spending. GIven the other candidates I could imagine myself voting for Ford in 2010 based on what we knew about him.
None of thta is true about Trump.
I agree, it isn't a fair comparison - to Ford.
Ford was a one-note candidate, but his one note was 'cutting spending', not being offensive to minorities (in fact, he often got along rather well with some of 'em - at least, the ones with substance abuse problems in common ;) ). He was a boor, a drunk and a druggie, who while in office went entertainingly off the rails, but no-one speculated that he was an honest to God fascist.
I guess they are similar in that they both boorishly troll, but Ford was more of a joke (albeit a sad one, in his self-destruction). Trump has long ago ceased to be funny.
Yeah, I agree. Ford was really just a bad joke of a politician and a rather tragic human being. It is astounding anyone voted for him but I guess there will always be a percentage of right wing voters who will support anyone with a spending reduction slogan. Trump is far more dangerous and destructive and cannot simply be written off as a joke as most did early on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2015, 02:25:21 PM
Yeah, I agree. Ford was really just a bad joke of a politician and a rather tragic human being. It is astounding anyone voted for him but I guess there will always be a percentage of right wing voters who will support anyone with a spending reduction slogan. Trump is far more dangerous and destructive and cannot simply be written off as a joke as most did early on.
To understand why Ford was elected, it is necessary to understand some peculiarities about the office of Mayor in Toronto. First, the Mayor lacks much in the way of power - most of that lies with the council. Second, Toronto suffers from a forced amalgamation of a bunch of suburbs with the original "city", which have radically different cultures. The city is far more left-wing, and the city has, traditionally, dominated the peripheral suburbs in that the government has focused more on its interests. The suburbs tend to believe that they are being taxed to pay for the follies and frivolities of the city - none of which reach them. Naturally, this creates resentment, which Ford was able to capitalize on. His one-note message was intended to 'send a message' to council to take the burbs more seriously.
I see. A protest vote with no real risk because the mayor couldn't really do anything anyway - except make headlines for extra-office activities. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2015, 03:30:44 PM
I see. A protest vote with no real risk because the mayor couldn't really do anything anyway - except make headlines for extra-office activities. :lol:
Pretty much. His astonishing capacity for drinking and drugging weren't such common knowledge until he was actually elected, though. ;)
Now, Ford did push through some spending cuts and the like, so the office isn't
totally powerless - but they were small change sort of stuff. He did not have the power to push through major changes without council approval.
What made him truly memorable wasn't his antics, but his adamant refusal to do the decent thing and resign when his antics came to light - as any half-decent politico of the old school would have done. Then (and only then) was it discovered that there was, literally, no legal mechanism to dispose of a serving mayor aside from some narrow grounds that didn't apply. :lol: Apparently, no-one had ever considered that a mayor
wouldn't resign if he got caught (say) smoking crack.
They almost got him on some murky conflict of interest, but only because 'being a big, boorish, drunken embarrassment' wasn't an available ground - but he survived. So council basically cut him out of influence entirely, in effect creating a Ford "sandbox office" where he could play without doing any harm (except to our collective dignity, of course). ;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2015, 02:39:07 PMNaturally, this creates resentment, which Ford was able to capitalize on. His one-note message was intended to 'send a message' to council to take the burbs more seriously.
This is where I see the similarities between Trump and Ford - they're capitalizing on resentment and the desire to 'send a message' to the people with power to take their concerns more seriously. The personal foibles and danger signs of the candidate are secondary to that; they're either embraced as part of the message, or simply rationalized away.
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2015, 04:04:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2015, 02:39:07 PMNaturally, this creates resentment, which Ford was able to capitalize on. His one-note message was intended to 'send a message' to council to take the burbs more seriously.
This is where I see the similarities between Trump and Ford - they're capitalizing on resentment and the desire to 'send a message' to the people with power to take their concerns more seriously. The personal foibles and danger signs of the candidate are secondary to that; they're either embraced as part of the message, or simply rationalized away.
There is a certain resemblance there.
Unfortunately, it is the differences that are likely to be more important - namely, the resentments in the case of Toronto (suburbs vs. city) were nowhere as poisonous as the resentments Trump is exploiting. Moreover, there is no comparing the power of the offices being sought.
Ford musing openly about putting those fat cats in downtown Toronto into concentration camps would have been
funny ... ;)
Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2015, 04:04:47 PM
This is where I see the similarities between Trump and Ford - they're capitalizing on resentment and the desire to 'send a message' to the people with power to take their concerns more seriously. The personal foibles and danger signs of the candidate are secondary to that; they're either embraced as part of the message, or simply rationalized away.
I'm trying to think of a politician that would *not* fit that description.
Western society is basically throwing itself at fascism as we speak, so I guess the Donald and Marine le Pen will decide to invade Russia in 2016.
Conrad Black on Donald Trump
QuoteTrump Is the Good Guy
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy
Blah - it just came out as an enormous wall of text. But anyways, an interesting read. I have a lot of time for Conrad Black, but do not always agree with his views.
And I don't think I agree with this one.
:hmm:
And your daily dose of Trump from CNN.com:
Can Donald Trump keep America safe? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/trump-isis-republicans-split/index.html)
Poll of Polls: Trump dominates nationally, in NH; tight in Iowa (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/donald-trump-polls-new-hampshire-iowa/index.html)
Shocking comment yelled at Trump protester (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/15/trump-new-poll-high-athena-jones-newday.cnn)
Protesters at Trump rally forcibly removed (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/donald-trump-protesters-las-vegas/index.html)
The Donald Trump Show comes to Las Vegas (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/donald-trump-republican-debate/index.html)
Sarah Palin's favorites: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/presidential-debate-sarah-palin-jake-tapper/index.html)
Quote from: Savonarola on December 15, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
And your daily dose of Trump from CNN.com:
Can Donald Trump keep America safe? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/trump-isis-republicans-split/index.html)
Poll of Polls: Trump dominates nationally, in NH; tight in Iowa (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/donald-trump-polls-new-hampshire-iowa/index.html)
Shocking comment yelled at Trump protester (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/15/trump-new-poll-high-athena-jones-newday.cnn)
Protesters at Trump rally forcibly removed (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/donald-trump-protesters-las-vegas/index.html)
The Donald Trump Show comes to Las Vegas (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/donald-trump-republican-debate/index.html)
Sarah Palin's favorites: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/presidential-debate-sarah-palin-jake-tapper/index.html)
On the front page, no scrolling, on the international edition right now he has 5 stories including both the headlines. He's good.
Quote from: Liep on December 15, 2015, 05:22:30 PM
On the front page, no scrolling, on the international edition right now he has 5 stories including both the headlines. He's good.
Meanwhile he's there, but relatively low profile on foxnews.com (at the time of hitting submit).
I suddenly remember that any person elected to the White House will have access to the nuclear weapon launch codes. Maybe I am paranoid, but somehow the thought of Mr Donald Trump putting his fingers on the buttons/briefcase/codes or whatever that is makes me a bit uncomfortable :ph34r:
All fun and games until someone loses a city.
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2015, 04:44:47 PM
Conrad Black on Donald Trump
QuoteTrump Is the Good Guy
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy)
Blah - it just came out as an enormous wall of text. But anyways, an interesting read. I have a lot of time for Conrad Black, but do not always agree with his views.
And I don't think I agree with this one.
:hmm:
Wait, I thought he was in jail for Fraud.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 15, 2015, 09:12:40 PM
I suddenly remember that any person elected to the White House will have access to the nuclear weapon launch codes. Maybe I am paranoid, but somehow the thought of Mr Donald Trump putting his fingers on the buttons/briefcase/codes or whatever that is makes me a bit uncomfortable :ph34r:
yeah but he could say 'you're fired, China' right before pressing the button and at least we'd have a little humor before nuclear annihilation, so there's that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2015, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2015, 04:44:47 PM
Conrad Black on Donald Trump
QuoteTrump Is the Good Guy
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy)
Blah - it just came out as an enormous wall of text. But anyways, an interesting read. I have a lot of time for Conrad Black, but do not always agree with his views.
And I don't think I agree with this one.
:hmm:
Wait, I thought he was in jail for Fraud.
He got out. Several years ago.
Huh. What do you know. His whole article was bunk.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 15, 2015, 09:12:40 PM
I suddenly remember that any person elected to the White House will have access to the nuclear weapon launch codes. Maybe I am paranoid, but somehow the thought of Mr Donald Trump putting his fingers on the buttons/briefcase/codes or whatever that is makes me a bit uncomfortable :ph34r:
I'm not particularly worried since Trump apparently doesn't even know what the nuclear triad is.
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 16, 2015, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 15, 2015, 09:12:40 PM
I suddenly remember that any person elected to the White House will have access to the nuclear weapon launch codes. Maybe I am paranoid, but somehow the thought of Mr Donald Trump putting his fingers on the buttons/briefcase/codes or whatever that is makes me a bit uncomfortable :ph34r:
I'm not particularly worried since Trump apparently doesn't even know what the nuclear triad is.
probably some Hong Kong mobster gang :p
Quote from: Savonarola on December 15, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
And your daily dose of Trump from CNN.com:
Poll of Polls: Trump dominates nationally, in NH; tight in Iowa (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/donald-trump-polls-new-hampshire-iowa/index.html)
The tightness in Iowa's got be Yi either answering questions with more questions or getting propositions from males during karaoke night.
Donald Trump - Not enough hot air to reverse direction of wind farm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581)
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2015, 09:33:10 AM
Donald Trump - Not enough hot air to reverse direction of wind farm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581)
He'll have to move his golf course. ;) We had similar with attempts put a wind farm off of Cape Cod - Ted Kennedy and others were against it. It still hasn't gone through, probably mainly due to costs associated with the electricity it would generate, especially since we could buy wind energy cheaper from Canadian land based wind farms.
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 16, 2015, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 15, 2015, 09:12:40 PM
I suddenly remember that any person elected to the White House will have access to the nuclear weapon launch codes. Maybe I am paranoid, but somehow the thought of Mr Donald Trump putting his fingers on the buttons/briefcase/codes or whatever that is makes me a bit uncomfortable :ph34r:
I'm not particularly worried since Trump apparently doesn't even know what the nuclear triad is.
You only need one to cause a big problem.
http://moviepilot.com/posts/3676177
QuoteAs excitement grows for the highly-anticipated Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the stars of the film have been out and about on the usual promotional trail, garnering more buzz for the film. This means that the legendary Harrison Ford is wandering about Australia at the moment, giving wonderfully sardonic interviews and getting flat tyres on his bicycle rides around Sydney.
During an interview with Angela Bishop for Studio 10, Bishop tells Ford that Donald Trump (just his name is enough for Ford to begin mocking him) is a big fan of his and of the way he "stood up for America in Air Force One."
Harrison Ford's perfect response:
http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_limit,h_280,w_480/t_mp_quality_gif/newrw79rbljvmirwgbyt/donald-it-was-a-movie-watch-harrison-ford-make-fun-of-donald-trump-747880.mp4
:D
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35131725?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
QuoteDonald Trump 'honoured' by Vladimir Putin's compliments
US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has said it is a "great honour" to receive a compliment from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The property tycoon hailed Mr Putin as a man "highly respected within his own country and beyond".
It comes after Mr Putin said Mr Trump was a "very colourful, talented person" during his annual news conference.
The two men, both known for their blunt manner of speaking, do not know each other personally.
After hearing President Putin's comments on Thursday, Mr Trump released a statement praising the Russian leader.
"It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," he said.
"`I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect."
'Closer relations'
Mr Trump is currently widely regarded as the frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential ticket, a race where other candidates have made no secret of their wariness of Mr Putin.
"I suppose [Putin] sympathises with Trump without knowing him well in person but he is following him closely, what he does and says, just because he is not a kind of usual Western politician," Alexander Baunov, an analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center, told the Associated Press news agency.
President Putin made his remarks during his televised annual news conference at which he used crude language to lash out at Turkey, a Nato member and key US ally in the conflict in Syria.
But he had warm words for Mr Trump, telling viewers: "He says that he wants to move to another, closer level of relations. Can we really not welcome that? Of course we welcome that."
In October, Mr Trump told US TV network CBS that he and Mr Putin would "probably get along... very well".
During one presidential debate, he said: "If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS [the Islamic State group], I am all for it, 100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it."
One of Mr Trump's rivals for the Republican ticket, Jeb Bush, criticised his response to the Russian leader's remarks on Thursday.
"A true freedom-loving conservative wouldn't be flattered by praise from a despot like Putin," he wrote on Twitter.
The cordiality between two of the world's most visible politicians was mocked in some quarters of the US media.
"The two men share a love for spectacle and an appreciation of its ability to move low-information voters," Christian Whiton wrote on CNN, while the New York Times detected a "long-distance bromance".
I wonder how that will play with supporters.
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I wonder how that will play with supporters.
I wonder if Trump will be able to get a sense of Putin's soul?
... but I think it'll play well with Trump's supporters. There are plenty of people outside of Russia who appreciates Putin's style and wish their own leaders were more like him.
Time to bump the "Is Trump a fascist" thread, looks like.
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I wonder how that will play with supporters.
I predict well.
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2015, 12:29:06 PM
... but I think it'll play well with Trump's supporters. There are plenty of people outside of Russia who appreciates Putin's style and wish their own leaders were more like him.
I've never talked to or read anything by anyone in the US that thinks Putin is swell.
I'll be interested to see how this plays as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 12:54:40 PM
I've never talked to or read anything by anyone in the US that thinks Putin is swell.
I'll be interested to see how this plays as well.
According to the Atlantic, Putin was the 10th most admired man in the US in 2014: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/vladimir-putin-the-10th-most-admired-man-in-america/384085/
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2015, 12:58:10 PM
According to the Atlantic, Putin was the 10th most admired man in the US in 2014: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/vladimir-putin-the-10th-most-admired-man-in-america/384085/
OK, that's 1% of the American public I haven't had much contact with.
I guess there's always the whole "Western leaders hate them ergo they're good" crowd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 01:04:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2015, 12:58:10 PM
According to the Atlantic, Putin was the 10th most admired man in the US in 2014: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/vladimir-putin-the-10th-most-admired-man-in-america/384085/
OK, that's 1% of the American public I haven't had much contact with.
It's Russian immigrants who know the FSB is monitoring their votes.
:rolleyes: They do no such thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 01:04:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2015, 12:58:10 PM
According to the Atlantic, Putin was the 10th most admired man in the US in 2014: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/vladimir-putin-the-10th-most-admired-man-in-america/384085/
OK, that's 1% of the American public I haven't had much contact with.
Me neither :)
But yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
I guess there's always the whole "Western leaders hate them ergo they're good" crowd.
American peaceniks can say and do some stupid shit, but they're not in the same league as Brit peaceniks.
I remember Putin arm wrestled Dana Rohrbacker and won the respect of the Congressmen. I think he attract support from anyone dissatisfied with the West be it Hard Left or Hard Right. There are also some who buy into his macho image.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
I remember Putin arm wrestled Dana Rohrbacker and won the respect of the Congressmen. I think he attract support from anyone dissatisfied with the West be it Hard Left or Hard Right. There are also some who buy into his macho image.
Yes, you and Jacob's comments make a lot of sense.
I can imagine a bunch of the occupy crowd I used to know, lapping this up.
It's also a good move on Putin's part, a Trump 'administration'/shambles would be easier to influence and deal with.
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2015, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I wonder how that will play with supporters.
I wonder if Trump will be able to get a sense of Putin's soul?
... but I think it'll play well with Trump's supporters. There are plenty of people outside of Russia who appreciates Putin's style and wish their own leaders were more like him.
I disagree. I don't think Russia is viewed favorably by most Americans let alone trump supporters.
Two new polls out. PPP has Donald at 34 and Cruz at18. Fox has Trump at 39 and Cruz at 18. I believe that's the highest those two have been in both those polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
Never knew GOP want Hillary to be prez so bad
With trump not condemning reporter killing, he has jumped into my top 3.
I hate the press.
Trump's up 8 points in the PPP poll since it was last issued a month ago.
Trump's up 11 points in the Fox poll in the last month.
Up 6 in the ABC poll over the last month. Up 13 in CBS/NYT poll. Up 13 in the Monmouth poll. Up 9 in the CNN/ORC. Up 4 in the NBC/WSJ poll.
All the signs point to hyuge momentum as the Donald would say.