Donald Trump for president?

[Lihu]

23 hours ago, Elmer said:

I am interested in how Trump is going to act moving forward. He came in second earning 7 delegates, but Cruz "won". Trump does handle not being "the best" at everything. How does he move forward?

Honestly, if Cruz beats Trump, we'll probably see another 4 years of the Democratic dominance.

Cruz has no appeal as a career politician (worked his entire life in public 'service') and appears to have a lot of things hidden from the public. Those are the types of things which could be easy targets for the democrats.

[Joe from MD]

Trump is the driver of the clown car,  and this circus is far from over. This is the most interesting and screwed up election cycle in a long time, and its still got a year to go. Just hope the electorate got more than half a brain.

[Mr. Desmond]

Trump says Cruz cheated by announcing that Carson had left the race, when he'd actually gone to Florida to wash his undies... Did Cruz benefit? Possibly. Did Cruz benefit from Trump's rant? Yes, and his response was ridiculous but will appeal to his supporters ... a circus.

[Lihu]

7 hours ago, Joe from MD said:

Trump is the driver of the clown car,  and this circus is far from over. This is the most interesting and screwed up election cycle in a long time, and its still got a year to go. Just hope the electorate got more than half a brain.

As individuals, possibly, but collectively they are as smart and organized as the clown act in a circus. Probably the same circus. . .

[rkim291968]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

Honestly, if Cruz beats Trump, we'll probably see another 4 years of the Democratic dominance.

Cruz has no appeal as a career politician (worked his entire life in public 'service') and appears to have a lot of things hidden from the public. Those are the types of things which could be easy targets for the democrats.

Trump has far less of a chance than Cruz to win the general election.  He tops all candidates on negative impression by the general voters.   Rubio is GOP's best chance to win the general election.

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Trump has far less of a chance than Cruz to win the general election.  He tops all candidates on negative impression by the general voters.   Rubio is GOP's best chance to win the general election.

Any way you dice it, unless the Democrats do something terribly stupid, it looks pretty bad for the GOP. It's kind of like the pre-W primaries again, and no one else is really as popular as Trump.

Trump adds a lot of flavor to the campaign that could appeal to independent voters. Most of the unsavory stuff has already been done.

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

Trump has far less of a chance than Cruz to win the general election.  He tops all candidates on negative impression by the general voters.   Rubio is GOP's best chance to win the general election.

Polls still give Trump a halfway decent shot Clinton, not as good against Sanders. 

Trump versus Clinton: Clinton +2.7
Cruz versus Clinton: Cruz +1.3
Rubio versus Clinton: Rubio +2.5

Trump versus Sanders: Sanders +5.3
Cruz versus Sanders: Sanders +3.3
Rubio versus Sanders: Rubio +1.0

Right now of the top 3 only Rubio is favored versus the Democrats. 

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

Any way you dice it, unless the Democrats do something terribly stupid, it looks pretty bad for the GOP. It's kind of like the pre-W primaries again, and no one else is really as popular as Trump.

Trump adds a lot of flavor to the campaign that could appeal to independent voters. Most of the unsavory stuff has already been done.

The errors on most of these polling is 3-5 points. The only one that goes outside that is Trump versus Sanders. The rest are 50/50 toss ups. 

Cruz did win Iowa. If Trump was that popular wouldn't he have won? I think a lot of Trump's polling numbers are inflated because he appeals to the people who want to voice out. I think they tend to answer polling questions more. 

I wonder if Trump appeals to people who don't actually generally vote a lot. I wonder if that is what hurt him in Iowa more than his excuse for not going to the debate. 

He dropped about 10% from his polling high to the % number of votes he got. One week before the election he was at 33%, then he got 24% of the vote. 

Right now he's at 33% gain in New Hampshire. Does he see that 9-10% drop again? 

[Mr. Desmond]

55 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Polls still give Trump a halfway decent shot Clinton, not as good against Sanders. 

Cruz did win Iowa. If Trump was that popular wouldn't he have won? I think a lot of Trump's polling numbers are inflated because he appeals to the people who want to voice out. I think they tend to answer polling questions more. 

I wonder if Trump appeals to people who don't actually generally vote a lot. I wonder if that is what hurt him in Iowa more than his excuse for not going to the debate. 

He dropped about 10% from his polling high to the % number of votes he got. One week before the election he was at 33%, then he got 24% of the vote. 

Right now he's at 33% gain in New Hampshire. Does he see that 9-10% drop again? 

I don't give any credence to polls of Pub v Dem nominee because most people are not looking closely at both potential nominees and the issues. I think a lot of this pregame is personality. The game will start in September.

I think Cruz won Iowa because he had captains in each county and a superior ground game. Donald did not focus sufficiently on the ground game.

As to Trump, I think people are fascinated by the idea of celebrity President but when it comes to pulling the lever to vote, not so much.

And Iowa? It's groomed for Cruz -- evangelical, white, and extreme right wing. Cruz talks the talk. It would have  been a surprise if he did not win. That he only had 28% as opposed to 24% and 23% for Trump and Rubio says something about Cruz's unpopularity and/or people leery of him. He should have won hands down.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Slice of Life]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:28 PM, Lihu said:

I only disagree with this part, he's a smart ass and not dumb. . .

Listen to the way he speaks. His sentence structure isn't even remotely near the level of someone intelligent enough to run the Country. So, like, totally, definitely...those are his most used words. It's filler for children that don't really know what they're talking about. And just because he's rich (based on a small loan of a million dollars), doesn't mean he's intelligent. Business savvy and intelligence don't always go hand in hand. 

[newtogolf]

18 minutes ago, Slice of Life said:

Listen to the way he speaks. His sentence structure isn't even remotely near the level of someone intelligent enough to run the Country. So, like, totally, definitely...those are his most used words. It's filler for children that don't really know what they're talking about. And just because he's rich (based on a small loan of a million dollars), doesn't mean he's intelligent. Business savvy and intelligence don't always go hand in hand.

Could be a few explanations for this,

1. Simple sentence structures are easier for people to comprehend, especially those with less education or those where English is their second language
2. He's used to speaking in sound bites for television and believes this is most effective for his campaign,

If you've ever seen him speak outside of the campaign or even on his show, it's obvious he's an intelligent person.  Obama imo is a horrible public speaker when he doesn't have a teleprompter to read from.

[Golfingdad]

37 minutes ago, Slice of Life said:

Listen to the way he speaks. His sentence structure isn't even remotely near the level of someone intelligent enough to run the Country. So, like, totally, definitely...those are his most used words. It's filler for children that don't really know what they're talking about.

I beg to differ.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

I can probably stop there, I think you get the point. 

[nevets88]

47 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I beg to differ.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

I can probably stop there, I think you get the point. 

Nuclear. That bit takes me back to his press conferences. So cringeworthy. Everyone has their own little odd pronunciations of particular words though, but those press conferences. Ugh.

[rkim291968]

At least 3 GOP candidates dropped out after IOWA.  This is the expected bad news for Trump as their votes & endorsements will likely go to others than Trump.   My 2 cents.

[rehmwa]

14 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

At least 3 GOP candidates dropped out after IOWA.  This is the expected bad news for Trump as their votes & endorsements will likely go to others than Trump.   My 2 cents.

Rand Paul was the only halfway serious one that dropped.

2 other guys that never made it to any debate of the top 8,9, or 12 or whatever?  i won't bother listing their names, the news shouldn't even have bothered either.

I'm terrified of 4 people in the race for pres (YMMV - personal opinion only and I know others disagree)

1 - Hillary (no need to explain this - criminal, opportunistic, just a horrible person)

2 - Bernie (I believe he's sincere, but I also believe that his superpower will be the total annihilation of the world economy)

3 - Trump he's terrible and vindictive, a total disaster in waiting for any type of foreign policy work

4 - Cruz - we need an evangelical conservative type like we need a mountain of dirty diapers (Rubio might be an acceptable lower octane version of this that I could plug my nose and vote for....)

I'm really sad that our top 4 options are caricatures of the crazy uncle fringes of both parties

In terms of forcing the people to vote on philosophy and what vision they want - I'd have loved to see the polar opposite go to a vote - Ron Paul (not Rand) and Bernie - or the equivalent two people that believe what they say.  At least I'd then know what the other 300,000,000 citizens think (does the bulk of the populace believe in near-socialism, or individual determinism with self responsibility?  It really can go either way, I just don't know - it would be nice to know which way the wind is blowing......).

That's all - so personally, I'm feeling a little bit un-represented. If it gets down to picking two from this list, I will likely vote for whichever candidate I think will have the hardest time with the congress and hope congress grows some balls and stops letting the exec and judicial act like out of control legislators.  It's their job to act like out of control legislators.

[Dave2512]

I don't know every lifelong republican I know is ready to vote "none of the above" this year. When the choices are the bible beaters and a racist, sexist lunatic it's slim pickins'. Nobody I know thinks Cruz or Rubio are electable.

[jbishop15]

16 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I don't know every lifelong republican I know is ready to vote "none of the above" this year. When the choices are the bible beaters and a racist, sexist lunatic it's slim pickins'. Nobody I know thinks Cruz or Rubio are electable.

I live in a pretty conservative area of Georgia, and this is exactly what I'm hearing as well. 

[RandallT]

15 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

If it gets down to picking two from this list, I will likely vote for whichever candidate I think will have the hardest time with the congress and hope congress grows some balls and stops letting the exec and judicial act like out of control legislators.

This. I think the federal executive powers are nearly unlimited right now. Seriously- who really stops the executive branch when they want to disregard the law/constitution? Plus, it takes so long to get a court case rolling and decided. Quite a lot of the blame rests on the legislative branch for that.

If we had a President Trump, you could be certain that the media would lead the cheers for the legislative branch to limit the executive. If we have a President Sanders, on the other hand, the media will bemoan a "do nothing" Congress and encourage executive action. It's all predictable.

I think the Senate should be elected by the state legislatures, as they used to be. This way, they are beholden to the states, and not in it for their own aggrandizement. Part of that aggrandizement has been to push the federal agenda by cozying up with lobbyists and the federal establishment. Big mistake, IMHO. If they were appointed by the states, the states could yank them back when they stopped serving the interests of the state. As it stands now, the legislative branch doesn't see a need to limit the executive- and the lawmakers can benefit more by being in cahoots with it all.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

I live in a pretty conservative area of Georgia, and this is exactly what I'm hearing as well.

I know a lot of Republicans who don't like Trump (myself included) but would vote for him if he was the only Republican choice just to make sure Billary or Sanders don't win.