Who's your money on?Follow

By a 2:1 margin, GOP primary voters in Florida who paid attention to the Chicago kerfluffle said it made them MORE likely to vote for Trump.

Based on? I'm not any real fan of Shapiro but saying "He quit because he's mad they didn't like his candidate enough" isn't an especially reasonable assumption without evidence.

I'm not sure you have. When a guy gets a free 90 minutes to give a QVC demonstration of his amazing steaks and magazines, it's hard to pretend that he's being mistreated.

Edited, Mar 14th 2016 1:00pm by Jophiel

We're talking about a state where people eat peoples faces on bath salts, though.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trump-militia-forms-to-forcefully-protect-rally-goers-against-far-left-agitators/ At the severe risk of a Godwin's, my vote is zombies.

I apologize for the poor wording. He essentially said that the only way that any of his bills would pass would be through a political revolution. There would be a "huge" turnout and those people would vote in a new Congress favorable to President Sanders.

Given that a Congress with a 13% approval rating essentially was all re-elected in 2014, his implementation strategy is more unrealistic than his actual plan.

I think Trump will make America great by getting slapped the hell down like a little three year old and rolled out of the primaries or crushed in the GE, once and for all proving to the knuckledragging cousin-humpers of the world that they have not nor ever will run a damn thing in this country.

Sooooo many ads...

Sanders is all about getting my money back from the banks. Clinton is all about black people, oh yeah, also that bank thing.

Cruz is running an ad that's just a fast-talking mess, a far departure from some of his slick and effective ads earlier. Rubio is running an ad that hilariously suggests that a vote for Rubio is sticking it to the establishment by electing a true conservative. Trump had some ad that I can barely remember, he also has some terrible radio ad that's him just rambling talking points for about 45 seconds. No Kasich ads that I've seen.

I've seen more humble looking hardhat clad men and women driving bolts or moving I-beams or offloading machinery than there are manufacturing jobs in the entire state.

Curiously, there's almost no lawn signs or bumper stickers to be seen. There are more signs supporting a local library referendum than for all the ballot candidates combined. If not for the TV ads, you wouldn't guess that there's going to be an election tomorrow.

Edited, Mar 14th 2016 7:34pm by Jophiel

What do you suppose the odds are they might actually run together? I could see Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton being pretty unstoppable in the GE against anyone.

Say what you will, Hugo Boss will make uniforms great again.

Imperial regime presidency!

Seriously? This is a real question? Um... I run a random pool at work. Everyone puts $10/week into the pool, and each week we draw randomly from a hat to see who wins the pot. There's 5 black guys and 5 white guys participating. It just so happens that after 20 weeks of doing this, more than 50% of the winners happen to be white. You get that random chance almost never results in perfectly equal outcomes, right? There's an infinite number of possible ways in which random chance can (and will) result in unequal outcomes. And if those things happen to have a mix of people of different races, then guess what? The outcomes will not be equal based on the relative number of each race in the mix the majority of the time. The flaw is assuming that it will be, and that the mere fact of unequal outcomes is somehow proof, not just of some form of racial discrimination in the process itself, but of actual racism.

That's a hell of a stretch to make.

Yes. Which is precisely why he employs those sorts of antics in the first place. Hence "lapdogs". They're doing all his heavy lifting for him.



I think it is partly both. When the media does attack him, its for him being exactly what his supporters like about him. But most of the time, media doesn't speak in its own voice. It repeats allegations by others. So most of the media coverage of Trump is how outraged <some group> is about something Trump did or said. But if you've been paying attention, it's not the words that those in the media use, but the inflection in their voice when saying it that affects people's perceptions, and the tone of Trump coverage over the last 6-8 months has been positive. It's been about how strong he is to stand up to criticism of his harsh-but-true statements, and how well he's doing despite all those people who dislike him. When nearly every single report criticising him starts or ends their segment by talking about how well he's polling, it's hard to say that they're "attacking" him.



Exactly. Do you get that most of the people in the media (aside from conservative talk and most on Fox) wants Trump to win the nomination, right? Maybe I have a more keen eye for this than most because I pay attention to how nuances of tone are used in the media to dismiss or encourage a position based on how it affects things politically (generally in favor of left leaning politicians or ideas). But what I've noticed since late summer is that the media reports on Trump like it reports on liberal politicians, not conservatives. It "reports" negatives about him, but with a positive tone. Once you start paying attention to this, it's really obvious to see and hear. They say the words condemning something Trump did or said, but say it in a way that makes people have a positive view of Trump anyway. I see this all the time, and I've been seeing it with Trump.

I'm sure their reasoning is that if they can help Trump win the GOP nomination, then Clinton will have an easy time of it. Recall that she's a very weak candidate, and nearly every single poll has her losing to pretty much anyone the GOP puts up against her. Except Trump. Here's the problem though. The media has spent the last 8 months or so doing this. I don't think they'll be able to reverse that if/when he wins the nomination. They've literally trained the public to not just ignore the antics of Trump, but to transfer those things into a perception of strength on his part. I don't know how they're going to pull off the whole "Ok, when he was running for GOP nomination, you were supposed to laugh off this stuff, but now that he's running in the general, take it seriously" bit. I'm sure they'll try, but it'll be an uphill battle. Doubly so with Clinton as the best the other side can bring.


In any case though, the media coverage has been overwhelmingly helpful to Trump. Even if it doesn't look like it from a surface view of the coverage itself.

Sanders would offer nothing to a Clinton ticket. Clinton wouldn't offer much to a Sanders ticket either and, frankly, I doubt she'd want the job. It's not as though she's going to run for president again in 4-8 years if she doesn't win this one. It's this or nothing. Sanders would be better off finding some younger up-and-comer; a senator or governor, state attorney general or the like. Not "brand new to the job" young but young enough to conceivably run for the big seat in the future.