Will The Undecideds Decide?
As startling as it is to those of us who obsess over politics, last night's presidential debate was actually the first time millions of Americans paid any attention whatsoever to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. For millions, the first debate is the first time they tune in at all, both literally and figuratively. Even more astonishing, most of them haven't made up their minds on which candidate to support, even this late in the race.
This is astonishing but it really shouldn't be, because it happens pretty much every election cycle. Our presidents are not really chosen by the 40 percent who are staunchly Republican or the 40 percent who are loyal Democrats -- it is always decided by the 20 percent in the middle.
This year, the undecideds have already made their presence known, mostly by their absence. We have two third-party candidates in the race who are polling much higher than third-party candidates usually do. Gary Johnson regularly gets around eight or nine percent, and Jill Stein has been getting three to four percent as well. What this has meant is that the two major candidates are battling it out in the low 40s. If there were no big third-party draw, those numbers would be in the high 40s or even low 50s. So the effect is already noticeable.
We won't have any hard data for how the undecideds saw last night's debate for a few more days, I should mention. Polls take time to conduct (at least, those with solid methodology do). But at this point in the race, even a small polling bump could radically change the odds either Clinton or Trump will win, so it'll be very important to see if the undecideds start breaking towards one candidate or the other.
There are currently eleven states where neither candidate holds a lead of more than three percent. The list: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Now, two of those states don't really belong on the battleground list, because nobody really expects Trump to win Rhode Island or Clinton to win Mississippi. They're probably just polling outliers, in other words. But even after removing those two from the list, that still leaves nine states with a whopping 116 Electoral College votes between them. A shift of only three points one way or the other could change the electoral map significantly, meaning the undecided vote could easily be decisive in the end.
Early reports from focus groups show Hillary Clinton appears to have won over more undecideds than Trump, but the sample size for focus groups is so miniscule that you really can't draw any solid conclusions from this yet. The media pretty unanimously declared Clinton the winner of last night's debate. Even conservative commentators were -- at best -- arguing that it was a draw between the two candidates. Usually, biased pundits unequivocally state their guy (or gal) won, hands down, so the relative weakness of the arguments of conservatives this morning is in itself notable. If the best you can say (with a straight face) is that it was a draw, then your guy probably lost, to put this another way.
But the media doesn't always get it right. They declare debate winners (at times) that the public just doesn't agree with, which usually shows up in the polling pretty quickly. Perhaps this is one of those times, but it doesn't feel like it to me.
Modern debates are more about style and zingers than they are about policy or agenda items. People tune in to see the fur fly. When it does, that is the moment that is remembered afterwards. On these two metrics, I think Clinton won handily. She had the harder tightrope to walk on style, since she had to be Goldilocks about everything -- not too loud, not too quiet; not too aggressive, not too passive; not too emotional, not too robotic or lawyerly -- the list is a long one. Are there sexist reasons her performance is so hard to get right? Probably, but I'll leave that for others to argue. What seemed obvious is that she did successfully navigate this tightrope last night. Summing up her style into one word, I'd have to pick "balanced." She threaded the needles of being "not too this or not too that," all night long. She was strong on offense, fairly strong on defense, and she successfully shot down Trump's bluster in a way that 16 Republican candidates could not manage to do even once, in all of their primary debates.
Trump, on the other hand, failed stylistically. He started off fairly well, bending over backwards to be polite and respectful, but after the first half-hour, Trump reverted to being Donald Trump once again. He interrupted Hillary Clinton 51 times and Lester Holt 19 times. He got very loud. He could not stand still while she was talking, and the split-screen showed his range of emotional reactions to what she was saying. Trump, strangely enough, was terrible on offense, and chose instead to play defense all night long. Trump only landed a few solid blows on Clinton, and he ignored several of her vulnerabilities entirely. Instead, he rose to the bait every time Clinton dangled it in front of him, and ended the night restarting his feud with Rosie O'Donnell -- not exactly a presidential look, to state the obvious.
If you had watched the debate with the sound off (as some swear by, but I suspect few actually do), you were at least spared Trump loudly sniffing every few moments. But you saw Trump not being able to stand still, and Trump drinking water constantly. By comparison, Clinton didn't cough once and never even took a drink of water. It's easy to see who looked more confident and relaxed.
On the other metric most Americans measure debates by, the zingers were also lopsided heavily in Clinton's favor. This shows the benefits of preparation, and indeed Clinton's preparation was the subject of one of her most effective zingers of the night. She wasn't perfect, by any means -- several of her practiced zingers fell awfully flat (such as the "Trumped-up trickle-down," which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). But she had so many of them ready to go that even if not all of them were effective, the ones that did land well were fairly devastating. Trump, on the other hand, did a better job zinging himself than he did against Clinton. By this, I mean that he handed Clinton a whole boatload of ammunition to use against him in future ads. He brushed off paying taxes as stupid, he brushed off not paying people who work for him as his inherent right, he stood by profiting from the housing meltdown as just good business, he brushed off his entire birther past, and he denied saying things that he is on tape saying, over and over again. He said that $14 million was a "small amount" and later on stated that owing $650 million was "not that much." So much for his man-of-the-people appeal. And those are just the most noticeable gaffes of the night -- there were plenty of others as well. Trump made so many unforced errors in the debate that the Clinton camp will have a wide selection to choose from, when putting together their new ads for the next few weeks.
If the focus groups are right, the first debate did change some minds. The value of debates -- and the reason why so many people watch them -- is that two candidates are standing next to each other. Instead of hearing one candidate or the other on a stump speech caricaturing the positions of their opponent, the opponent is standing right there to answer any falsehoods or misrepresentations. Undecided voters are pondering a few crucial questions for both candidates: "Could this person be president? Could they represent America during a time of crisis? Are they worthy of my support?"
Not all undecideds are going to firmly decide, based only on last night. But some of them will. Some of them came to a decision last night, and it will be very interesting to see what the polls have to say, later this week. Could there be movement either towards or away from the third-party candidates? In normal elections, third-party candidates usually see their support evaporate the closer they get to Election Day. Will that hold true this time around, or will even more people decide Johnson or Stein would be a better choice? It's impossible to know, at this point. Some undecided voters undoubtedly made a choice last night. It'll be fascinating to see what that choice turns out to be, that's for sure.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This is astonishing but it really shouldn't be, because it happens pretty much every election cycle. Our presidents are not really chosen by the 40 percent who are staunchly Republican or the 40 percent who are loyal Democrats -- it is always decided by the 20 percent in the middle.
Yep, yep, yep...
Us NPAs and Independents are who pick the President.. :D
Early reports from focus groups show Hillary Clinton appears to have won over more undecideds than Trump, but the sample size for focus groups is so miniscule that you really can't draw any solid conclusions from this yet.
Which won't stop the Clintonistas from doing just that.. :D
The media pretty unanimously declared Clinton the winner of last night's debate.
Of course they did..
And the American people pretty unanimously declared Trump the winner of last night's debate...
Pretty standard and expected...
Modern debates are more about style and zingers than they are about policy or agenda items. People tune in to see the fur fly.
The best analogy I have seen to date is a NASCAR RACE.. :D
Some undecided voters undoubtedly made a choice last night. It'll be fascinating to see what that choice turns out to be, that's for sure.
Based on all media reports I have read (and I have read a ton, as my comment count will attest to) many undecideds came to the decision that they don't like Hillary. That Hillary doesn't meet their needs.. That Hillary is not going to help them at all...
So, they decided to be Trump supporters..
I think ya'all are going to find that more and more Trump supporters are going to realize that they don't have to hide their choice anymore...
Michale
"I think ya'all are going to find that more and more Trump supporters are going to realize that they don't have to hide their choice anymore..."
You may be right, but as statistics show you are wrong...
more trump supporters will move to Clinton because they know she's not an asshole...
And come on. Any sane person knows that Trump is an Asshat.
It wasn't a total loss for Donald last night. He did get some much needed exercise. Big Mac!
Our presidents are not really chosen by the 40 percent who are staunchly Republican or the 40 percent who are loyal Democrats -- it is always decided by the 20 percent in the middle.
No.
Elections are not decided by people deciding which way to vote. They're decided by people deciding whether to vote. Most of those are either people who will definitely vote Democratic if they vote at all, or people who will definitely vote Republican if they vote at all.
And most of the rest are not in the middle. They're entirely out of the picture, not paying attention to politics at all. If asked, they will give whatever answer the pollster is fishing for. If the pollster manages to be completely unbiased, they'll give a mishmash of answers.
Sure, there are some swing voters in the middle. But not 20 percent. Probably not even 2 percent.
Trump probably knows he got whipped like a rented mule last night. I expect he will be furious and be looking for somebody to blame, especially if the polls hit him hard later this week.
Maybe it is time for a new campaign manager - Kellyanne Conway has been in the role for weeks now.
Time to bring out the big guns. Time for Karl Rove. And with only ~40 days until the election Trump can only expect to have two, or at most, three, new campaign managers, otherwise people might start to think him fickle.
Hey CW
"Our presidents are not really chosen by the 40 percent who are staunchly Republican or the 40 percent who are loyal Democrats -- it is always decided by the 20 percent in the middle."
I objected last time you trotted out this line, because Johnson and Stein are not "in the middle".
But as a wonk, I'm sure you are also well aware that registered (aka "staunchly" or "loyal") Dems and Repubs are both around 30%... with registered independents at about 40%.
If you count to which party indies lean, the numbers are around 45-48% with Dems having the advantage.
I realize this is rather pointless quibbling (though as a third party voter I find it irksome), but whichever way you're counting, your numbers are wrong, and you are better than that dammit.
A
dsws
6
Nice.
A necessary and different take on our true reality and why CW's numbers are wrong.
A
Trump threatens to bring up Bill's infidelity at the next debate. This is playing with fire for Trump. Hillary can say the follwoing:
"We know you are right in what you say about Bill. This was not the best time in our lives, but we got past it. It hurt, and frankly, it still hurts. But at least Bill tried not to hurt me. At least he tried to protect his family. How about how you treated your family when you cheated on Ivana? You cheated on your wife and the mother of your children then humiliated them in the tabloid press. Bill might be stupid at times, but at least he isn't cruel as well, Donald."
Do you REALLY think Trump wants to bring up infidelity?
"The scandal was seriously affecting the Trump children. Donny junior was being ridiculed at the Buckley School. Ivancka had been in tears at Chapin. When Donald and Marla Maples attended the same Elton John concert, Donny junior cried, for his father had told the children he would give Marla Maples up. “The children are all wrecks,” Ivana told Liz Smith. “I don’t know how Donald can say they are great and fine. Ivancka now comes home from school crying, ‘Mommy, does it mean I’m not going to be Ivancka Trump anymore?’ Little Eric asks me, ‘Is it true you are going away and not coming back?’ ” However cavalier Ivana’s public behavior was, in private she often cried. Once her husband’s co-conspirator, she told friends that she now felt she was his victim."
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner
Apophis,
Which "statistics" would those??
And *I* am the one who is accused of never providing facts??? :/
Michale
more trump supporters will move to Clinton
And yet, the movement in EVERY battleground state has been towards Trump...
How do you spin THAT fact???
because they know she's not an asshole...
No, "they" know she is a greedy, lying, unprincipled, no-integrity rhymes-with-witch...
Which is why Trump is beating her....
Michale
You cheated on your wife and the mother of your children then humiliated them in the tabloid press. Bill might be stupid at times, but at least he isn't cruel as well, Donald."
Only a Democrat would characterize rape and sexual assault as being "stupid at times"... :^/
Michale
And come on. Any sane person knows that Trump is an Asshat.
So???
You just DON'T get it...
Hillary is the NO CHANGE/STATUS QUO/ESTABLISHMENT candidate...
In this election, upwards of 80%+ of Americans DO NOT WANT the status quo....
Americans want change so much and so bad that they are willing to risk a BAD change over no change at all...
I realize your Party loyalty prevents you from seeing these facts.. But they are facts nonetheless...
Donald Trump is the CHANGE candidate in a campaign where 81% of the electorate WANT change...
It's THAT simple...
Michale
Trump probably knows he got whipped like a rented mule last night. I expect he will be furious and be looking for somebody to blame, especially if the polls hit him hard later this week.
Trump Surrounded By Adoring Hispanic Supporters
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article104484896.html
Yea... Trump looks REALLY "furious"... :D
Neal, do you EVER get tired of being wrong?? :D hehehehehehehe
Michale
“My message today … is to Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s manager. You know, I’m 61 years old. I’ve been out of the closet for 40 years. And Mr. Mook is a gay person, just like me.
And it’s really flooring the hell out of me that he’s supporting a woman that took money from these countries, from these countries that would take him and his friends or his lover or his partner and throw them off a building and kill them.
And what I find now it’s not funny going into a gay club and having some terrorist from these Muslim countries coming to kill us. And you should be ashamed of yourself for campaigning for that bitch. Unbelievable.
And for me, this is a worse time now, worrying about ISIS killing us. You don’t even know the time of AIDS, that was a bad time that I never thought in my life I would see another time that I would fear for me and my other gay friends. …
But to know that you are a gay man, like us, and you’re her campaign manager. How disgraceful, that you are out there in the public supporting somebody that is going to come here and will kill you for being a gay man.
You are a disgrace, Robby Mook.”
-Deb, TRUMP SUPPORTER
Yep, yep, yep.. What she said...
Ya'all support a candidate who supports regimes and takes money from regimes that EXECUTE people for being gay...
It's mind-boggling...
Michale
Neilm wrote:
"Trump threatens to bring up Bill's infidelity at the next debate. This is playing with fire for Trump."
Don't forget, not only did Trump cheat on Ivanka, he cheated on Marla as well. So, Hillary can fire back that he's a serial cheater, really no different from Bill.
especially if the polls hit him hard later this week.
Let's take a look at those polls...
Well, the RCP National poll shows that Hillary's lead has shrunk even further...
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
RCP Battleground Polls show EVERY battleground state moving away from Hillary and towards Trump...
cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-colorado-pennsylvania-polls/index.html
So, I'de say polls show Trump in pretty good shape...
As far as Trump thinking he lost the debate??
Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate
by a landslide despite CNN´s overwhelming
victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
Daily Mail (UK), by Staff
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=888320
You can live in your own fantasy world if you wish. I won't begrudge you that because I know that reality is just too damn hard for ya'all to take..
But you better get used to saying President Trump... Because he is going to be our next President... :D
Michale
dsws wrote:
"Elections are not decided by people deciding which way to vote. They're decided by people deciding whether to vote. Most of those are either people who will definitely vote Democratic if they vote at all, or people who will definitely vote Republican if they vote at all."
Very true. The best example of this are mid-term elections.
Don't forget, not only did Trump cheat on Ivanka, he cheated on Marla as well. So, Hillary can fire back that he's a serial cheater, really no different from Bill.
Except that Trump hasn't raped anybody or sexually harassed anybody...
So, Trump is nothing like Bill in that regard....
Do ya'all REALLY think that Hillary can win in an infidelity mud match???
Because if ya'all REALLY think that, ya'all are a LOT more delusional than I thought..
And THAT says something.. :D
Michale
Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters
Democrats are sweating over turnout in one of the most important states on the electoral map.
MIAMI — To kill Donald Trump's chances of capturing the White House, Hillary Clinton needs to win Florida. And to do that, she needs a big minority turnout.
But Democrats are beginning to worry that too many African-American voters are uninspired by Clinton’s candidacy, leading her campaign to hit the panic button this week and launch an all-out blitz to juice-up voter enthusiasm.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822#ixzz4LYJlAGeq
At least Camp Clinton has the good sense to be in panic mode about minority turnout..
Hillary is simply an uninspiring status-quo Establishment candidate...
Every black person needs to ask Hillary, "What have you done for me lately??"
She would have no answer for that because Democrats have scroo'ed over black Americans six ways from Sunday...
Michale
10,000 gather for Donald Trump rally in Central Florida
Trump's personal passenger jet rolled up to a waiting stairway outside the AeroMod hangar, where inside, an estimated 10,000 people waited to hear him speak.
"Almost every single poll had us winning the debate against crooked Hillary Clinton," he told the cheering crowd. "Big league. Big league."
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/donald-trump-to-rally-in-melbourne
Yea.. Trump is really "furious" at his debate "loss".... :D
Hillary's lucky if she can bring in a few hundred to her rallies...
Let's face reality, people.. Hillary had her ass handed to her by Trump.. Just like it's going to be on 8 Nov...
Michale
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRAm6vPYuMM&feature=youtu.be&t=3660
Fire Marshals absolutely LOVE Hillary Clinton rallies.. Only a couple hundred show up and it's easy to manage... :D
Fire Marshals hate Trump rallies.. Handling tens of thousands of supporters is a logistical nightmare for them...
So, while the Fire Marshals will be voting for Trump, they hate working Trump rallies.. :D
Michale
CW- "Trump, on the other hand, failed stylistically"
This observation has been nagging me for about 18 hrs.
Style basically refers to two attributes, roughly speaking, appearance and technique.
In terms of appearance, El Trumpo had a bad night. He didn't look well to me, and I clearly wasn't alone in noticing. His energy flagged, he sniffled, he fidgeted, he shut down. The closest historical precedent would be Nixon in the Nixon:Kennedy TV debate.
With respect to technique, Trump was just being Trump. He was loud and interrupted his opponent frequently. He hurled insults. He was boorish. That's his trademark. He didn't finish sentences, or even complete his thoughts before moving on to a new topic and leaving the audience to fill in the blanks. Again, that is a Trump trademark, a as big as The Tower. Oh, and he lied about every 3 and 1/2 minutes, another trademark.
Trump's trademark operational techniques successfully won him the Republican Nomination. But, on the evening of the First Debate, they were perceived as a stylistic failure. Conventional wisdom actually predicted this: Trump failed to pivot after the convention. Primaries and General Elections are very different things. It's very risky to bet against conventional wisdom for too long.
It might be good politics for Trump to pivot now, better late than never, maybe, but I don't think it's possible. He is what he is, and what he is a collection of personality pathologies that cannot be modified.
Trump's trademark operational techniques successfully won him the Republican Nomination. But, on the evening of the First Debate, they were perceived as a stylistic failure..
In YOUR opinion...
The vast majority of Americans say differently...
Like I said.. Ya'all have opinions..
I have facts...
Michale
Like I said.. Ya'all have opinions..I have facts.
Just like Trump does, like how he "won that CBS poll".
Except that there was no CBS post-debate poll.
Michale [23] -
Time for some pedantry.
I heard a discussion about this, and then heard his recent quote. In the recent one, he is clearly saying "Big league." But in previous quotes, I clearly heard him say "bigly."
Has he just changed, or gotten better on enunciation? Has he always been trying to say "big league" or did he shift from "bigly" at some point?
Anyone else? Inquiring minds want to know...
-CW
Really????
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/cbsnewyork-poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/
Donald Trump won the CBS poll...
Like I said... *I* have the facts..
Ya'all have..... well, I am not sure what ya'all have...
Michale
What you've linked to is a poll by a local CBS affiliate, not a 'CBS poll'.
Here ya go - to amuse you this morning:
https://youtu.be/6YuI5T-gGlM
What you've linked to is a poll by a local CBS affiliate, not a 'CBS poll'..
It's a CBS poll....
Michale
You can debate what the definition of 'IS' is until the cows come home..
But the fact is, the vast majority of online polls show that Trump won the debate..
Even though online polls don't mean dick, the mere fact that ya'all are arguing the point shows how much they mean to ya'all...
The American people overwhelmingly chose Trump as the winner..
Live with it..
Michale
Having said that, let me repeat what I said BEFORE the debate..
If Hillary can make it the 90mins without collapsing or having a coughing fit, then it's a win for her..
So, she DID get a win... No two ways about that...
But Trump did to....
Michale
[10] neilm: Perfect.
What's great about this too is Trumpie is busy telling the world what his strategy is going to be -- isn't that a big "no no" for him? You know, letting our enemies know what we're going to do….
At any rate, we can be sure Hillary has all sorts of offenses/defenses planned, not just for Donald throwing sludge, but for anything/everything else he might do. And his toolbox is pretty limited.
The second debate is Town Hall with questions from audience. So, unless one of them asks about Bill, Trump's going to have to pivot to it, which will just compound his very clear inability to actually answer questions that are asked.
But the fact is, the vast majority of online polls show that Trump won the debate..
Because the online polls were rigged by trolls from 4-chan and Reddit. See this excellent Fortune article about the details.
They couldn't pull that off, you say? The Fortune article cites an 2009 incident in which Reddit users manipulated a Time poll about the most influential people in the world so that 4-chan founder Christopher “Moot” Poole would win first place, and all of the top 10 winners would spell the code word “marblecake.” They accomplished that.
Plenty of other sites have articles about this. The #TrumpWon movement is busted.
Of course, everyone that isn't a rightwing stooge/Trump supporter knows this, but still:
So the next time a deplorable starts tweeting you about how Trump really won last night, have a good hearty laugh then send them a link to this story.
http://americablog.com/2016/09/trumpers-say-won-debate-fake-online-polls-sad.html
Trump is running around trying to convince everybody he won using BS polls. Let's hope he fools himself at least and is convinced that his prep for Monday's debate was sufficient and he can wing it again for the next two.
Because the online polls were rigged by trolls from 4-chan and Reddit.
Yea, yea... Ya'all always have spin... :D
Meanwhile, Camp Clinton is cede'ing Florida to Trump, as they cancel'ed Bubba's bus tour thru North Florida..
I guess Floridians were worried about their daughters around Bill, so.....
Michale
It's funny how ya'all are so hysterical about online polls....
They don't mean dick, yet ya'all are downright frantic because Trump won in 95% of them... :D
Michale
Senate votes to override Obama’s 9/11 veto; 97-1 White House rejection
Senators linked arms and delivered a stinging defeat to President Obama on Wednesday, voting to override his veto of a bill that would give victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks a chance to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts over the behavior of Saudi officials they believe may have been complicit in the attack.
Obama just got slapped down by Congress!!! :D
Michale
Here's the one fact that ya'all simply CAN'T spin away...
According to you, Trump is a Hitler and is completely incompetent and a total waste of skin..
Yet Hillary is LOSING to him.... :D
Michale
And this is interesting: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/fox-news-reprimands-sean-hannity-stop-citing-bullsht-online-polls-claiming-trump-won-debate/
By Tuesday, a Fox News memo obtained by Business Insider had reprimanded Hannity and others at the network for relying on garbage polls that “do not meet our editorial standards.”
Of course, the idea that FOX has editorial standards is hilarious, but when something is so stupid even FOX won't swallow it...
Paula [44]: This just about sums it up, only they missed one word (I added it for them in []):
“[Real] News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason,” Blanton continued. “They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion.”
[39] neilm: Yes. I think the more the righties fool themselves going forward the better it is for all of us.
And the more I think about it the more I like the idea of Trump going dirty in the next debate, bringing up Bill's infidelities. So many advantages to Hillary:
she knows its coming so can prepare;
she immediately has access to the moral high-ground;
handled well, she will be humanized (to those who think she's "robotic");
handled well, she will generate a ton of sympathy;
Trump will look like an absolute slime;
she defuses the issue now which renders it harmless as she begins her administration.
Bring it on Orange Man!
[45] neilm: Exactly! "Real" News networks...
Time for some pedantry.
Oh goodie!! :D
"Well, hay.. At least we're talking."
-Sam Winchester, SUPERNATURAL
I heard a discussion about this, and then heard his recent quote. In the recent one, he is clearly saying "Big league." But in previous quotes, I clearly heard him say "bigly."
Has he just changed, or gotten better on enunciation? Has he always been trying to say "big league" or did he shift from "bigly" at some point?
Anyone else? Inquiring minds want to know...
I honestly can't say.. I am not very patient and don't like to wait for online videos.. All my vast and superior knowledge :D comes from reading..
Michale
Paula,
[45] neilm: Exactly! "Real" News networks...
The problem is, ya'all define "real" news networks as the news networks that tell ya'all just what ya'all want to hear...
So, by a REAL American's definition, your "real" news networks are nothing but propaganda outlets...
Michale
I really feel bad for ya'all..
It's going to be absolutely BRUTAL for ya'all when Trump is elected President....
Michale
Meanwhile, THIS IS FABULOUS: http://www.poynter.org/2016/nprs-real-time-fact-checking-drew-millions-of-viewers/432375/
This is bringing debates into the information age:
Here's how it all worked: When the debate kicked off at 9 p.m., NPR had a transcription service providing a moment-by-moment transcript of each candidates' remarks in real-time. Then, a snippet of code read that transcript and dumped it into Google Docs. From there, 20 NPR journalists on a variety of beats annotated the transcript, checking facts and adding context.
Kelly approved the annotations, which were then fed onto a page on NPR.org by a separate piece of code that checked the transcript every 10 seconds. The resulting transcript was embeddable, and multiple NPR member stations, including WNYC, opted to use the fact-check.
The real strength of the project, Kelly said, was the collective brainpower of NPR's journalists. Reporters from national security and immigration beats brought different expertise to bear on the facts, forming a kind of "hive mind" that was more potent than any one reporter.
The real strength of the project, Kelly said, was the collective brainpower of NPR's journalists.
You mean the collective power of LEFT WINGERY propagandists....
Michale
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html
Trump is crushing it in Ohio....
Just thought I would mention it.. :D
Michale
A new low...
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7525605/madonna-gets-naked-joins-katy-perry-supporting-hillary-clinton
Hollywood D-Celebrities are stripping for Hillary..
Michale
So, apparently the Democrats are going for the stripper vote..
Bubba must LOVE that... :D
Michale
Unbelievable.
M [33]
"
What you've linked to is a poll by a local CBS affiliate, not a 'CBS poll'..
It's a CBS poll...."
It's as much a 'CBS Poll' as a special offer put up by the manager at your local McDonalds is a 'McDonalds Special Offer'. It is sponsored only by that specific franchise/affiliate, not the actual company/network.
What polls showed Trump as the winner of the debate?
He said they all did, save the CNN poll ...
Below is a link to the address Senator John Warner (R - Virginia, retired) gave today as he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Senator Warner has always been one of my favourite senators. He is a republican and one of America's finest statesmen who has given exemplary service to his country, in and out of uniform.
His words today are very compelling and I hope you enjoy the video!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/28/former_gop_sen_john_warner_endorses_hillary_clinton_loose_lips_sink_ships.html
"Campaign advisers to Donald J. Trump, concerned that his focus and objectives had dissolved during the first presidential debate on Monday, plan to more rigorously prepare him for his next face-off with Hillary Clinton by drilling the Republican nominee on crucial answers, facts and counterattacks, and by coaching him on ways to whack Mrs. Clinton on issues even if he is not asked about them." - NYT
I wouldn't want to be the flunky who has tell Trump to sit down and study. Straws will probably be drawn at the next staff meeting.
"Whether he is open to practicing meticulously is a major concern, however, according to some of these advisers and others close to Mr. Trump." NYT."
How do you teach a guy to debate who can't finish a sentence?
TS [60]: The problem is that Trump seems to have so much still to learn. He has to:
1. Demonstrate that he has at least a superficial grasp of facts and standard policy for a wide range of subjects
2. Be able to find weaknesses in Hillary's policy proposals. Hillary isn't going to sit back and not engage in a back-and-forth, so he better be able to explain beyond superficial silliness (e.g. build a wall)
3. Be able to "hit Hillary really hard" and do it in a way that doesn't generate sympathy for her, and/or open himself up to a counter attack (e.g. talking about Bill's infidelities opens him up to the same charge, but with a lot more ammunition at Hillary's disposal). Hillary can also put the cat among the pigeons by asking him if he is still cheating if he tries to go too deep into the muck (i.e. a version of the gotcha question: "are you still beating your wife?")
4. Remember that there is always a camera on him, so he needs to look calm at all times
5. Remember that Hillary will be out to taunt him again, and instead of taking the easy option and taking the bait, he has to either ignore it, or try to turn it back on her
6. Be ready for the obvious attacks - where are your pre-audit tax returns? Why do you make much of your merchandise abroad? etc. etc.
7. Not sniff too obviously
I've done a lot of public presentations, including hostile round tables with competitors, and it is not easy.
LizM [58],
"What polls showed Trump as the winner of the debate?"
Those fake internet "polls" that his flying monkeys spam. Ten percenter wRong Paul was good at "winning" those as well. It's easy for a cult of personality.
I see.
Has anyone else noticed that the Orange Juggalo is quite a gun grabber? First he wants to take HilRod's secret service guns away and now he wants the cops to stop and frisk black people who "they think may have a gun" and grab their guns. To be fair, not just black people, he wants to do the same to Latinos.
And, the destruction by nuclear weapons is very important to him.
Well, I suppose it really should be. If only the pinhead understood that his stupid wall won't stop the fallout . . .
I wonder if he has one of those luxury missile silo bunkers out there in Kansas.
Sure it should. But, it shouldn't be the defining principle of his nuclear policy. Which, at least so far, it is.
The End is near.
Mercifully.
Please remember, he doesn't do policy. He makes suggestions. To be fair once again, he also asks questions.
If I have them, why can't I use them?
JFC
I can imagine him emblazoning "TRUMP" in gold on the missile itself.
I'd call that probable.
RCP shows DT up by 2 in Ohio and HRC by a half point in Florida as of today, both statistically insignificant. Both RCP and Nate Silver (the gold standard until proven wrong) still favor HRC to win the election and polls responding to the debate have not yet been integrated. We shall see.
How many modernized nuclear weapons does the US need in order to sustain a credible deterrent?
By now it's obvious that Fat Donald has various personality disorders and all this fat shaming is starting to look a lot like self-loathing and projection. Chris Christie, Rosie O'Donnell, Alicia Merchado, even his own fanboys with that 400 pound guy remark. He needs help, but he's likely to win The Biggest Loser title without even going on the show. Like a Purple Heart. Sad!
LizM [75],
Fewer than we have?
Indeed.
How much of the current US nuclear arsenal would be required to destroy our planet, just once?
Maybe just one bomb depending on the reaction. Last time we nuked somebody, there weren't very many other countries with nukes.
Interesting: the Bloomburg Channel boys at MSNBC just did a story about how Fox News spent the day ignoring the Muchado story, even going so far as to cut off a woman in a focus group who brought it up.
Shields at full intensity..
Maybe just one bomb depending on the reaction.
That may be true. But, even if the US were to reduce all the way down to 10% of the current arsenal that would be more than enough.
Another important question centers around whether or not all three components of the nuclear triad are really needed.
What the US deems to be a credible nuclear deterrent will determine the outcome - positive vs negative - of many other related challenges, not least of which what Iran's nuclear program will look like 20 years from now.
[17] Michale
Ya'all support a candidate who supports regimes and takes money from regimes that EXECUTE people for being gay...
It's mind-boggling...
Love the pink washing that you keep trying to pass as a valid argument! Love IT! First off, this comment:
from these countries that would take him and his friends or his lover or his partner and throw them off a building and kill them.
Is referring to executions committed by ISIS, not any country's government. But it gets better:
And what I find now it’s not funny going into a gay club and having some terrorist from these Muslim countries coming to kill us.
When, exactly, was that funny since she thinks the humor is now gone?
It is absurd to think that countries are sending these people out as hired assassins targeting the gay community.
She has a problem with Hillary accepting money from anyone from countries that have citizens who would wish harm to gays. Then no candidate should except any donation from anywhere, is where this leaves us.
So I assume that she doesn't support Trump who has the backing of Evangelicals in this country who have called for homosexuals being rounded up and executed to prevent the spread of AIDS, right? Oh yeah, we don't want to discuss how Trump did nothing to stop the GOP from placing in the party platform that they support the use of "conversion therapy", a particularly cruel form of psychological torture that has resulted in countless suicides and which no medical or psychological board supports!
And for me, this is a worse time now, worrying about ISIS killing us. You don’t even know the time of AIDS, that was a bad time that I never thought in my life I would see another time that I would fear for me and my other gay friends. …
The fact that you are far more likely to die from being shot by someone close to you isn't nearly as frightening as the thought of scary Muslims who aren't repressed closet cases gunning you down on the softball field.
Or maybe it just isn't as frightening because it doesn't justify your bigotry in the same way that fearing Muslim suicide ninjas does?
Correction: "No candidate should ACCEPT", not except.
Now, THIS is why we need a post-comment edit function. :)
neilm-61
Good points, but Trump has just 11 days to master skills 1 thru 6 and find a good, non-drowsy, cold medication.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/690409cd305f2fe556cac12b93a17d39/tumblr_mo43w9VAmh1rw41szo1_1280.png
If 1-6 aren't ingrained habits, Trump is probably better off making minimal changes. If you have to think deeply about your speaking technique while trying to work it before 84 million viewers, you are almost certainly going to lose situational awareness and shortly thereafter the audience and ultimately the debate. There is simply no substitute for practice in the mission critical skills.
Don't get me wrong, last night was a disaster. When the White Power Group web sites say Trump lost the debate, Trump has an had awful night- but 11 days of crash coaching is not nearly enough time to make skills 1-6 into communication reflexes. Trump learned communications skills at the foot of his father, and to a lesser extent Roy Cohen. This ingrained skill set was effective in his real estate and marketing career, and on TV. It was also very effective with his core political supporters, effective enough to win the nomination and intimate doubters in the GOP. The problem is, it didn't look very impressive in a Presidential Debate scenario. It's the Problem of the Pivot. The communications environment has changed.
Even if Trump knows he isn't on the best charger in the lists, you can see why he may not want to change horses in mid tournament. He is going to have to unlearn a lot of bad habitats, some of which may be more like mental pathologies. This going to mess up his wiring. Realistically, Trump is probably stuck with his communication style, maybe polished up a wee bit around the edges. He has to hope it's enough, and that Clinton has a really off night. A lot of politics comes down to rolling the bones, and trusting to luck. Maybe the debates won't matter much.
I do not wish him luck.
. . . or he could just say "rigged" and not show up for any more losing.
He's afraid of Anderson Cooper.
JFC-87
No, that wouldn't fly with his own supporters. If Trump gets walloped in the second debate, he can skip the 3rd without much additional penalty or need for the obvious explanation: "I suck at debates, this is no fun."
[59] Elizabeth Miller,
Below is a link to the address Senator John Warner (R - Virginia, retired) gave today as he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Oh, good news I had not heard yet. :) Excellent video, and yes Senator Warner is totally correct.
“No one should have the audacity to stand up and degrade the purple heart … or talk about the military being in a state of disaster. That’s wrong.”
Yes, nailed it!
“You don’t pull up a quick text, like ‘National Security for Dummies.’”
*ROTFL* There are no CliffsNotes® either.
His words today are very compelling and I hope you enjoy the video!
Oh, yes I totally did... thank you for posting that. :)
You're very welcome, Kick.
I remember listening many times to Senator Warner, during Sunday morning interviews, Armed Services Committee hearings and senate floor debates and I always learned something very important whenever he spoke. He's very much like Joe Biden, in that respect.
Sadly, the US Senate has been on a steady decline since the departure of Warner and Biden and some others.
Hey, Kick ... do we have a real name for you??
[92] EM
Hey, Kick ... do we have a real name for you??
My name is Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump. Heh
Actually, people call me: Kick, Queen, or Khaleesi {3 nicknames, argh!} My real name is Victoria, but no one calls me that. :)
I thought Kick might be a nickname ... for Kathleen! RFK's daughter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was known as Kick.
Kick it is, then! :)
Or, would you prefer Victoria?
I'm trying to get my play book set, you know. :)
EM,
I thought Kick might be a nickname ... for Kathleen! RFK's daughter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was known as Kick.
I would wager she was named after her aunt "Kick," Kathleen Agnes Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington... née Kennedy, RFK's sister. :)
I just couldn't pronounce my first name when I was an infant. "What's your name sweetie?" Kicktrorlikla... shortened to "Kick." "Queen" for Victoria is a nice nickname, but my buddies calling me "Khaleesi" kinda gets on my nerves... I'm learning to adjust to it. :)
I think you're right about RFK's sister ... she was the one known as Kick!
[95] EM,
Or, would you prefer Victoria?
Kick... If somebody used "Victoria," there's a good chance I might wonder who they were talking about. ;)
Heh.
Liz M [85]
Oh how I long for an edit button. I am usually on my iPad, not my computer, when I am commenting. I am great when typing on a keyboard, not so much on a screen! Maybe we can ask Santa for it for Xmas?
my guess is that the undecideds are mostly fluctuating between clinton and third party/not voting. donald's support is smaller but steadfast. hillary's support is bigger but flakier. in that sense, even though the contents of the groups may have changed a bit, typical party tendencies appear to be holding to form:
massive voter turnout is a hillary landslide, over 350 EV including NV, AZ and NC.
solid turnout and hillary wins a firm majority of EV.
underwhelming turnout and donald edges.
extremely low turnout and donald tops 300 EV with all the traditional swing states plus PA and WI
if turn-out is fair to middling, PA will stay dem and i think either florida or colorado will be the deciding factor. hillary needs at least one; donald needs both.
JL
It's as much a 'CBS Poll' as a special offer put up by the manager at your local McDonalds is a 'McDonalds Special Offer'.
Exactly..
It is sponsored only by that specific franchise/affiliate, not the actual company/network.
You can spin it all you want..
But it's a CBS poll...
Michale
Liz,
Unbelievable.
I know, right!
Where ya been! Was getting worried...
Michale
[101] nypoet22
my guess is that the undecideds are mostly fluctuating between clinton and third party/not voting.
I agree; when a polling firm offers both 2-way and other-way matchups it tends to have the race tighter when there are only 2; implying more indies and "don't knows" will, when pressed, break for Clinton.
What polls showed Trump as the winner of the debate?
He said they all did, save the CNN poll ...
I posted a link in the last commentary..
TIME, CNBC, DRUGE, FORTUNE, SLATE
Pretty much 90% of the online polls says that Trump won..
As I said..Online polls don't mean dick. Which makes the hysteria from the Left Wingery, including the majority of Weigantians, so perplexing...
They can't even give Trump credit for winning bullshit polls.. :^/
Michale
Listen,
Or maybe it just isn't as frightening because it doesn't justify your bigotry in the same way that fearing Muslim suicide ninjas does?
Says the bigot who hates people just because they are Republican... :D
Michale
Actually, people call me: Kick, Queen, or Khaleesi {3 nicknames, argh!} My real name is Victoria, but no one calls me that. :)
Ahhhhhh THAT explains a lot.... :D
Michale
[89] TheStig
If Trump gets walloped in the second debate, he can skip the 3rd without much additional penalty or need for the obvious explanation:
These loser microphones! Some people, not me, but who knows, they're saying it's a conspiracy! Believe me, it's unbelievable!
The Clinton Campaign Has a Millennial Math Problem
In New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and other northern states, the Democratic nominee still has to close the deal with Bernie Sanders holdouts.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-28/clinton-millennial-math-problem
It's not looking good for Camp Clinton...
Michale
If Trump gets walloped in the second debate, he can skip the 3rd without much additional penalty or need for the obvious explanation:
And if Clinton gets walloped... AGAIN... in the second debate, she can skip the third and say she doesn't want to be associated with Fox News and her sycophants (like ya'all) will eat it up..
What's yer point, Stig??
Michale
[10] neilm,
Trump threatens to bring up Bill's infidelity at the next debate. This is playing with fire for Trump. Hillary can say the follwoing:
"We know you are right in what you say about Bill...."
Hold on there, Neil. Remember that Trump lies so much, and are you sure you want to give them that sound byte to use in their arsenal? I like it otherwise.
Another way to go would be:
"Well, Donald did reveal his war plan at our first debate so I have had time to think about this. In that first debate Donald explained he decided not to mention that because it was, his word, 'inappropriate.' He later went on to congratulate himself in interviews for not bringing up what he essentially brought up and to double and triple down on calling women pigs, slobs, and dogs... That's still 'inappropriate.' Now we could dredge up the divorces, depositions, and relitigate the '90s... We could talk about my marriage and your marriage... marriages, and the past of my spouse and your... spouses... It’s not by accident the great religions and the great writers speak about how the person who forgives is liberated, maybe even more than the person who is forgiven. Forgiveness is a choice we made, not an easy choice, and I fully respect those who don’t make that choice to forgive, for whatever reason, in their personal or professional lives, but for me it was absolutely the right choice. For me, it's incredibly difficult, but I am grateful every day that I made the choice I made. I think like most families in America, we work constantly to be better people, learn, and grow together... and now let's move the debate forward and discuss the American people and what we're going to do to help their children and their families."
Maybe something like that? I've heard her discuss this before. :)
Watching Mary J. Blige sing to Hillary Clinton is excruciating
by Elizabeth Hagedorn
http://circa.com/politics/mary-j-blige-hillary-clinton
Things that make ya go..... WTF!!!?????
Michale
Elizabeth Miller Wrote:
"How many modernized nuclear weapons does the US need in order to sustain a credible deterrent?"
A 2012 study—chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, and with other responsible and knowledgeable former national-security officials such as committee members, including ambassadors Thomas Pickering and Richard Burt, then Senator Chuck Hagel and General (Ret.) Jack Sheehan—concluded that the United States could reduce its nuclear arsenal to 450 warheads deployed on nuclear submarines and bombers, with an additional 450 in reserve, without jeopardizing security.
There have been other responsible studies of the number of nuclear weapons necessary for an effective deterrent, ranging from 311 to 1000 warheads. The Federation of American Scientists and the Natural Resource Defense Council released a study in 2009 concluding that 500 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS), nuclear submarines and bomber aircraft would be sufficient. A 2005 study conducted by Stanford physicist Sidney Drell and Ambassador James Goodby estimated a 500 warhead stock of operational nuclear weapons on submarines, ICBMS, and bombers, with an additional 500 warheads in a reserve “responsive force,” would provide an effective nuclear deterrent. The lowest estimate of these studies, conducted by two members of the faculty of the Air University and an active duty Air Force officer planner, described a 311-warhead force deployed on 100 ICBMS, twelve nuclear submarines and nineteen bombers as a sufficient deterrent.
These numbers of a few hundred weapons at most are in line with the current numbers thought to be held by other nations such as Britain, France, China and Israel.
Elizabeth Miller also wrote:
"How much of the current US nuclear arsenal would be required to destroy our planet, just once?"
Maybe this will sort of answer your question Elizabeth.
The United States currently has an arsenal of about 4,800 nuclear warheads, enough for an estimated 1,400-megaton cumulative yield of destructive power. That is 87,500 times the blast power of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima and equal to the blast yield of 1,400,000,000 tons of TNT. Put another way, it would only take one tenth of the 1,400 megatons we possess to decimate the fifty most-populated cities in the United States.
Liz,
"How much of the current US nuclear arsenal would be required to destroy our planet, just once?"
None..
Because it's impossible to destroy the planet...
We might make in uninhabitable for a few aeons....
But destroy the planet??
Humans could no more destroy they planet than they could alter the orbit of the planet...
Michale
JL,
massive voter turnout is a hillary landslide, over 350 EV including NV, AZ and NC.
UNLESS....
Unless the "massive voter turnout" is all for Trump...
Which, from all reports, is the most likely scenario....
In other words, Hillary is not bringing in millions of new voters..
Trump is..
Good to see ya round, Joshua.. Was getting worried about you as well.. :D
Michale
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQJLi2UTtM
Black women for Trump!!!!! :D
Michale
Oh yea..
Investigators may probe Cascade Mall suspect's citizenship status, voting record
http://www.king5.com/news/local/investigators-may-probe-cascade-mall-suspects-citizenship-status-voting-record/327490798
Illegals don't vote in elections.. :^/
Michale
Must you always take things so damned literally, Michale ... just answer the question.
Trump is in a mighty snit over the press REFUSING! to report he won the debate.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/donald-trump-debate-reaction/index.html
If this were a hand held electronic game, it would be called Angry Turds
That's a pretty good answer, John!
Which all goes to show that President Obama's overall nuclear policy has been extremely disappointing.
"Show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value!"
They can't even give Trump credit for winning bullshit polls.. :^/
Oh, I'm quite happy to give him credit for that!
Russ,
Maybe we can ask Santa for it for Xmas?
Well, we could try ... :)
I guess I just needed a little break, Michale ... all is good or at least as good as it gets, these days ...
Liz,
Must you always take things so damned literally, Michale ... just answer the question.
Which question??
Michale
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/donald-trump-debate-reaction/index.html
The fact that you point to CNN as "proof" of your claims is proof your claims have no merit. :D
Michale
See above, Michale ...
The planet destroyed question??
My answer was a fair and factual answer..
Humans CAN'T destroy the planet.. Which is why I laugh at the Flat Earth Global Warming fanatics when they claim that humans are "destroying the planet"...
It's pure, unadulterated fear-mongering to further a political agenda..
Now, to answer the question you MEANT....
The US has enough nuclear ordinance to render the planet uninhabitable many times over..
Where is the logic in that, you ask??
Nuclear weapons are not designed to be deployed... Their sole function and value is deterrent...
If nuclear weapons are ever employed.... they have already failed in their mission...
"In a nuclear war, the enemy is war itself."
-LT Commander Hunter, CRIMSON TIDE
Michale
Nuclear weapons are not designed to be deployed... Their sole function and value is deterrent...
Logically speaking, Michale, that is a good point but it wasn't MY point. :(
I'm talking generally about US nuclear policy and about whether it is on the right track or not.
Too bad the presidential candidates weren't asked about it the other night ... maybe next time, as it is a very important issue.
Too bad the presidential candidates weren't asked about it the other night ... maybe next time, as it is a very important issue.
Um, they were asked about it, and the answer from Trump was less than reassuring, as his rambling, free-association rant seemed to suggest such gems as 'China should invade North Korea, and South Korea and Japan need to pay up, or we'll let them fend for themselves' (paraphrasing, of course).
That's what prompted Hillary to look into the camera and say (paraphrasing again): 'I want our allies in South Korea and Japan to know that this guy doesn't speak for the US (yet). We know what a treaty obligation is, even if he doesn't'.'
It was, in my opinion, the most important moment of the night, in that it demonstrated the sharp contrast between a candidate who understands the world order, and one who dangerously doesn't.
Remember that the premise of the question from Holt was that Obama had recently publicly pondered whether our 'first strike' policy (combined with BushCheney's abandonment of America's 200-year-old policy of not attacking someone who hadn't attacked us first) had undermined our 'moral authority' in the world, a concern that democrats have, and that righties have been drifting away from.
In other words, should we, the (world's) cops, alleviate the (international) community's concerns about us by promising not to shoot unless we are shot at first, thereby regaining the Moral Authority high ground that we once had?
That is exactly the question I posed to Michale the other day, when we were discussing the shootings of unarmed black men in this country.
Trump's rambling answer didn't answer the question directly (did he say he would renounce the first strike option?) but seemed to land on the side of just arming everyone to the teeth (except Iran, maybe).
Sorry, I must have missed that clip.
"Um"??
Logically speaking, Michale, that is a good point but it wasn't MY point. :(
I'll take it!! :D
OK, if you could be so kind as to clarify your point, I'll take another stab at it.. :D
I'm talking generally about US nuclear policy and about whether it is on the right track or not.
I would say that it would depend on what your definition of "the right track" is...
If you are in the camp that claims nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose whatsoever and they should be unilaterally discarded, then I would say that our nuclear policy is definitely on the right track..
Michale
Do you remember what the exact question was, by chance?
"Um"??
Meant to indicate that I was gathering my thoughts, not that I was criticizing your comment. My apology to you for how that read.
Do you remember what the exact question was, by chance?
No, but I looked it up:
“Which leads to my next question, as we enter our last segment here, the subject of securing America. On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy? Mr. Trump, you have two minutes on that.”
Author and conservative activist Mike Cernovich passed this along tonight….
A Trump supporter in El Cajon, California was attacked, beaten, thrown to the ground and kicked on live Periscope.
He was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat… So they beat him to the ground.
The leftist mob then followed him around until he found the police.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/omg-leftist-mob-beats-kicks-pummels-trump-supporter-wearing-maga-hat-saved-police-caught-video/
This is what Hillary supporters are all about..
This is actually my old stomping grounds as I was born and raised in La Mesa, which is right next to El Cajon.
But this type of hysterical bigotry is EXACTLY what Hillary supporters are all about....
Michale
JM,
"OK, let's just brass some tacks here.."
-Metatron, SUPERNATURAL
Do you think it's completely ridiculous and utterly fantastical to claim that one shouldn't vote for Trump because he might unilaterally and completely on his own, launch nuclear weapons??
It's a simple YES or NO question...
Michale
Balthasar,
Did he know what the current policy is? :)
Meant to indicate that I was gathering my thoughts, not that I was criticizing your comment. My apology to you for how that read.
No problem.
I'm a sensitive soul, you know. :)
LizM [138],
Nothing in his word salad indicated that he did.
He said he "wouldn't do first strike", but he "can't take anything off the table".
It's all for the lulz.
Says the bigot who hates people just because they are Republican... :D
Michale
Seeing how I was a Republican up until 2008 and most of my family and friends are still Republicans -- you are, as Fonzi would say,
"WRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRONG!"
Michale, unlike you, I don't make comments accusing you of hating anyone because I don't know you well enough to make that statement. I, and most people on here, do not make comments like "you think that about anyone with an ("R" if the comment is negative or "D" if the comment is positive) behind their name!"
It's these types of comments that have given credibility to the accusation that you are simply a TROLL!
Oh Puuullleeeze, Listen...
I could go back over the last few weeks and pull your own comments that PROVE you despise Republicans...
So you might fool yourself with your claims that you are not a bigot... But your own comments prove to everyone else that you are...
Michale
It's these types of comments that have given credibility to the accusation that you are simply a TROLL!
Only in the eyes of someone enslaved by Party dogma and ideology...
Michale
Back on the subject of voter turnout --
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/
[144] dsws,
Great article. That Trump GOTV is practically nonexistent, and it's too late to try to get it together now. :)
Great article. That Trump GOTV is practically nonexistent, and it's too late to try to get it together now. :)
And yet, the fact is that GOP is having a HUGE new voter turnout and the Democrats are having a voter turnout deficit...
Apparently, Trump knows more than you do, sweet cheeks.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Do you think it's completely ridiculous and utterly fantastical to claim that one shouldn't vote for Trump because he might unilaterally and completely on his own, launch nuclear weapons??
It's a simple YES or NO question..."
Then the simple answer has to be NO. It's a valid, legitimate concern about how far any President might take us into war, including evaluations about the President's capability for rational thinking and exercising good judgement and temperament.
As an example, I would cite the lopsided loss of Barry Goldwater when he ran for President with a huge contributing factor to that loss being concerns over his handling of the nuclear warfare question. Remember the little girl with daisy and nuclear bomb going off in the background TV ad that was used against Goldwater with devastating effect??
I would also point out that people often make voting decisions based more on feelings and perceptions than on logical facts and reality.
Then the simple answer has to be NO. It's a valid, legitimate concern about how far any President might take us into war, including evaluations about the President's capability for rational thinking and exercising good judgement and temperament.
It is NOT a valid legitimate concern because it simply CANNOT happen...
It's nothing but blatant hysterical and unfounded fear-mongering and anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together and who is NOT enslaved by Party dogma and ideology knows this..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"It is NOT a valid legitimate concern because it simply CANNOT happen..."
WISHFUL THINKING Michale.
WISHFUL THINKING Michale.
Like I said. NOT wishful thinking.. Practical experience and expertise..
On your side??
You read it some place... :^/
Michale
Michale,
And yet, the fact is that GOP is having a HUGE new voter turnout and the Democrats are having a voter turnout deficit...
Apparently, Trump knows more than you do, sweet cheeks.. :D
Somebody thinks there is a correlation between primary turnout and wins in the general election, and somebody apparently didn't read the article at dsws' link in [144]. *LOL*
Somebody thinks there is a correlation between primary turnout and wins in the general election,
And if I were talking about turnout in the primary, you would have a point..
But I am not, so you don't..
In the GENERAL (one more time for the cheap seats) **GENERAL** election, turnout (IE registration) for Democrats is WAY down....
Turnout (IE registration) for Republicans is way WAY up..
Simple enough for you, honey bunches... :D
Michale
Michale,
In the GENERAL (one more time for the cheap seats) **GENERAL** election, turnout (IE registration) for Democrats is WAY down....
You just redefined the term "voter turnout" to mean "voter registration," and now you sound more silly than you ever have before. *LOL*
Voter turnout -- The percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election.
Turnout (IE registration) for Republicans is way WAY up..
Voter turnout is not voter registration. Duh :D
Simple enough for you, honey bunches... :D
It was already simple until you redefined it and mangled it into utter bullshit, snowflake. :)
You just redefined the term "voter turnout" to mean "voter registration," and now you sound more silly than you ever have befor
Because they are interchangable, sweet cheeks..
Voter turnout is not voter registration. Duh :D
In this case, it is.. You can't have voter TURNOUT until you have an election.... DUUHHHH....
Hence, anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together (guess that lets out most of the WPG) understand that "turnout" = "registration" because voters are "turning out" to register..
All of which is simply a smoke screen to obfuscate (lemme know if you need that explained) the FACT that Democrat "turnout" (IE turning out for registration) is way way WAY down...
And GOP "turnout" (IE turning out for registration) is way WAY up...
Sorry, sweet cheeks. I can't dumb it down for you any more than that...
Michale
Michale,
In this case, it is.. You can't have voter TURNOUT until you have an election.... DUUHHHH....
Right, so that's why your original statement saying "yet, the fact is that GOP is having a HUGE new voter turnout and the Democrats are having a voter turnout deficit... " sounds like you are referring to the primary election since "voter turnout" means... duh... voters who've turned out for an election.
Hence, anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together (guess that lets out most of the WPG) understand that "turnout" = "registration" because voters are "turning out" to register..
Okay, no matter how many times you type that "turnout = registration," it's not going to make it true. Everyone who registers to vote is not necessarily going to vote or even be eligible to vote.
"Voter turnout" is kind of a self-explanatory term to everyone here.
I can't dumb it down for you any more than that...
You dumbed it down for yourself and your ilk pretty good, dumb *flake*. :D
Okay, no matter how many times you type that "turnout = registration," it's not going to make it true. Everyone who registers to vote is not necessarily going to vote or even be eligible to vote.
They are "voters" and they "turned out" to register...
Jesus christ, I would not have thought you would be this dense, sweet cheeks..
You can argue what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..
But the FACT is that GOP is enjoying a massive voter turnout and the Demcorats are in the gutter with a massive deficit in voter turnout.
You can't dispute that FACT, so you show your ignorance by arguing what the definition of 'is' is instead...
Point.. Michale :D
*smooches*...
Michale
Jesus christ, I would not have thought you would be this dense, sweet cheeks..
You should really leave Jesus out of this since He knows the definition of "voter turnout."
You can argue what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..
Cut and paste... BORING.
But the FACT is that GOP is enjoying a massive voter turnout and the Demcorats are in the gutter with a massive deficit in voter turnout.
So you're talking "voter turnout," and "voter turnout" in the primaries is NOT indicative of "voter turnout" in the general election. :)
If we use your dumbass definition that "voter turnout" means people turning out to register to vote (duh), then you should realize that "massive" GOP voter registration in Wyoming and Nebraska isn't going to affect the electoral college any more than Dem registration gains in DC and Hawaii. Before you get all excited about voter registration, you should take a deeper dive into the data regarding the swing states.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-voter-registration-gains-probably-arent-gains-at-all/
You should also not believe everything you read on right-wing propaganda websites; you'll only get yourself all excited over bullshit. *LOL*