Donald Trump for president?

[Mr. Desmond]

So what did Cruz win?

Headlines ... media coverage.

In terms of delegates, Cruz gets 8, Trump gets 7 as does Rubio.

Such overplay for a State that should mean little as it does not represent the nation - that shows in the delegates... Our system is sooooo .... odd.

[AbsoluteTruths]

It would be good if the candidates wore NASCAR style jackets with their sponsors patches all over them. We all know that they all except for one would have their jackets covered.

 

[jbishop15]

10 hours ago, Gator Hazard said:

In fairness I would say that depends on the point of view of who is in Oval Office and who controls congress. The party not in White House but in control of congress always blames the president. And usually their loyal constituents eat it up. It's politics

He also rubbed it in the republicans faces behind closed doors. He gloated and boasted that they controlled the government and basically (although he did not use the exact term) said we won you lost you have to ride in the back of the bus. He's been horrible at unifying and in my opinion has done more to harm race relations even if not by design.   His arrogance has been a large reason why opposition has had a hard time compromising.

All that being said he is just another average president. I don't think he was either good or bad. He could have been better for sure. 

I could spend the rest of my life pointing out why that bolded statement is wrong. 

And calling him arrogant, with people like senators like Tom Cotton publishing open letters to Iran to undermine a world-negotiated nuclear deal, and senators like Ted Cruz shutting down the government and costing billions of dollars, is kind of ridiculous. 

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

And calling him arrogant, with people like senators like Tom Cotton publishing open letters to Iran to undermine a world-negotiated nuclear deal, and senators like Ted Cruz shutting down the government and costing billions of dollars, is kind of ridiculous. 

Too many lifetime politicians waste money for crappy reasons either Republican or Democrat. I suppose the Democrats aren't hypocritical about it, they openly crap in our faces.

This is kind of why Trump appeals to many people. He's in his own pocketbook.

[Gator Hazard]

1 hour ago, jbishop15 said:

I could spend the rest of my life pointing out why that bolded statement is wrong. 

And calling him arrogant, with people like senators like Tom Cotton publishing open letters to Iran to undermine a world-negotiated nuclear deal, and senators like Ted Cruz shutting down the government and costing billions of dollars, is kind of ridiculous. 

Be my guest, many can post arguments to the contrary and I think those arguments create a bigger picture.  It isn't what he has said as much as what he has not said and where he has decided to stay quiet that has really hurt relations.  Leaders are not supposed to sit back and be quiet and just let things happen, they are supposed to lead.  

I didn't make a statement about the other politicians, it is possible for more than one narcissist to exist in politics at one time.  I made a statement about his arrogance, and he has it in spades.

[Mr. Desmond]

2 hours ago, Gator Hazard said:

 I made a statement about his arrogance, and he has it in spades.

It depends on your definition of arrogance.

Is it egotistical? Is it "I am better than everyone else?"

If you run for President, I think they all have big egos and they must think to an extent that they know more than others.

I think Obama has that, but not in excess. I think he is more humble now. Like most of us, he would do things differently, as opposed to his predecessor, who doesn't admit to errors (that I've found).

There are candidates like Kasich or Sanders that do not express ego in spades, whereas others claim excessive use of or thankfulness to God, use their skills to manipulate others, and pretend they have all the answers - Cruz comes to mind. Rubio more recently - he's gone extreme lately to pick up his numbers. I think the Clintons believe they have the answers but at least they don't play the "God" card.

The process is long and these things work themselves out to the extent that money doesn't buy everyone.

[Golfingdad]

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/donald_trump_is_a_fraud_report_confirms_the_billionaires_presidential_bid_is_a_long_and_calculated_con_job/

Quote

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign feels whimsical, like a practical joke or publicity tour gone awry. But it turns out the Donald is running a long con. A newreport in Politico suggests Trump has been plotting this stunt for years, and he knew exactly what he had to do to succeed.

According to the report, Trump was approached two years ago by GOP operatives who wanted him to run for governor of New York. To their surprise, he declined but added that they would be useful when he ran for president. “I’m going to walk away with it and win outright,” Trump told the group, “I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that that they will never take the lights off of me.”

Trump knew all along that his celebrity and media savvy were sufficient to support his campaign. Although they didn’t believe him, Trump told the Republicans in that room in 2013 that he would dominate the race without spending much on paid advertising. From the report:

“’You can’t run for president on earned media,’ one attendee recalled telling Trump. The billionaire looked up, and paused for a long moment. ‘I think you’re wrong,’ Trump said. ‘Are you going to do all those little events at the Pizza Ranches?” another person asked, referring to the Iowa fast food franchises that are a staple of presidential campaign stops. ‘Maybe a little,’ Trump replied. ‘But it’s really about the power of the mass audience.’”

The last paragraph cracks me up because it reminds me of Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou.

 

 

 

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/donald_trump_is_a_fraud_report_confirms_the_billionaires_presidential_bid_is_a_long_and_calculated_con_job/

The last paragraph cracks me up because it reminds me of Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou.

 

We mass communicating!

Oh how sadly it fits ;)

On a side note, a great movie :) 

Did you ever watch any of Arnold's debates when he was running for Governor of California? I remember reading a few transcripts in college for my freshman English class. He did the same thing Trump is doing. Just antagonize your opponent. 

[Elmer]

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?
Will he go atomic on Cruz? 
Will he bow out using a business venture or golf course as an out?
I dont see Trump being a gracious in defeat, I dont see him sitting comfortably in 2nd place and playing role of underdog, especially to Cruz.
For the record I think alot of Trump's hot air is starting to come back to bite him in the caucus. Does he really think that we believe that Trump will make Mexico pay for a wall?

 

Just saw this on the interwebs:
Trump tweeted:  "The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!"
"Because I was told I could not do well in Iowa, I spent very little there - a fraction of Cruz & Rubio. Came in a strong second. Great honor."

Edited February 2, 2016 by Elmer

[rkim291968]

44 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Just saw this on the interwebs:
Trump tweeted:  "The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!"
"Because I was told I could not do well in Iowa, I spent very little there - a fraction of Cruz & Rubio. Came in a strong second. Great honor."

Yeah, he downplayed his loss like a veteran "politician."   He can't face losing, and this is his way of insisting that somehow he won.   I think the big take was that Trump almost lost to Rubio whom I think will do better as the race goes on and other candidates drop.  Didn't Bush get 3 delegates vs Trump's 7?  Those 3 can eventually go to Rubio.

[dkolo]

16 hours ago, RandallT said:

John King just said that when they say 99% of vote counted they mean of the "expected" vote, based on previous election.  They might have many many more votes to count. Trump might drop to #3.

That's... odd. They usually figure that percentage out by the percentage of precincts reporting. Unless Iowa Republican precincts send vote updates in live throughout the night, that'd be really weird. On the Dem side with the nature of the caucusing, doing it on anything but precincts would be meaningless. 

[RandallT]

30 minutes ago, dkolo said:

That's... odd. They usually figure that percentage out by the percentage of precincts reporting. Unless Iowa Republican precincts send vote updates in live throughout the night, that'd be really weird. On the Dem side with the nature of the caucusing, doing it on anything but precincts would be meaningless. 

Yah, I think John King/CNN is pretty good at his analysis on election nights, but this time, I think I may have misunderstood him. When we were at 99% precincts reporting, he made the comment that the 99% was a bit deceptive, and implied that we could have a lot more vote tallies coming in.

In the end, I think each candidates' totals went up maybe about another 5% (a couple thousand votes or so). I wish I had a screenshot to verify my memory though. But I get that 1% of precincts could be 5% of votes, but he was saying something else. That the estimated number they were using for "% precincts reported" was based on estimates of vote totals of precincts from the previous cycle, so they could be quite a bit off. Since the voting was about 50% higher this election cycle, I got the impression that we could have tons more votes to go, but it wasn't that much. Wish I could replay what it was he meant. Curious more than anything, not that it matters. 

[Golfingdad]

27 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Yah, I think John King/CNN is pretty good at his analysis on election nights, but this time, I think I may have misunderstood him. When we were at 99% precincts reporting, he made the comment that the 99% was a bit deceptive, and implied that we could have a lot more vote tallies coming in.

In the end, I think each candidates' totals went up maybe about another 5% (a couple thousand votes or so). I wish I had a screenshot to verify my memory though. But I get that 1% of precincts could be 5% of votes, but he was saying something else. That the estimated number they were using for "% precincts reported" was based on estimates of vote totals of precincts from the previous cycle, so they could be quite a bit off. Since the voting was about 50% higher this election cycle, I got the impression that we could have tons more votes to go, but it wasn't that much. Wish I could replay what it was he meant. Curious more than anything, not that it matters. 

But from what I read about caucuses yesterday, his comment wouldn't really apply.  Each caucus would only have one result at one particular time so unless they are sending out Papal smoke signals throughout the process, there isn't anything to report except their final result.

[jamo]

2 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?
Will he go atomic on Cruz? 
Will he bow out using a business venture or golf course as an out?
I dont see Trump being a gracious in defeat, I dont see him sitting comfortably in 2nd place and playing role of underdog, especially to Cruz.
For the record I think alot of Trump's hot air is starting to come back to bite him in the caucus. Does he really think that we believe that Trump will make Mexico pay for a wall?

 

Just saw this on the interwebs:
Trump tweeted:  "The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!"
"Because I was told I could not do well in Iowa, I spent very little there - a fraction of Cruz & Rubio. Came in a strong second. Great honor."

If Trump gets to a place where he's mathematically eliminated or close to it, he'll probably say something like "I've always known when to get out of deals before they go bad in my business career" and end his campaign. 

[Golfingdad]

The betting odds after last night:

 

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The betting odds after last night:

 

Ouch 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-comes-out-of-iowa-looking-like-pat-buchanan/

Quote

"It’s not uncommon for the polls to be off in Iowa and other early-voting states, but the manner in which Trump underachieved is revealing. It turns out that few late-deciding voters went for him. According to entrance polls in Iowa, Trump won 39 percent of the vote among Iowans who decided on their candidate more than a month ago. But he took just 13 percent of voters who had decided in the last few days, with Rubio instead winning the plurality of those voters."

On the primary reason why Trump didn't do so well even though owning the polls up to Iowa, 

Quote

"There may have been a more basic reason for Trump’s loss: The dude just ain’t all that popular. Even among Republicans.

The final Des Moines Register poll before Monday’s vote showed Trump with a favorability rating of only 50 percent favorable against an unfavorable rating of 47 percent among Republican voters. (By contrast, Cruz had a favorable rating of 65 percent, and Rubio was at 70 percent.) It’s almost unprecedented for a candidate to win a caucus or a primary when he has break-even favorables within his own party."

 

 

[RandallT]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

But from what I read about caucuses yesterday, his comment wouldn't really apply.  Each caucus would only have one result at one particular time so unless they are sending out Papal smoke signals throughout the process, there isn't anything to report except their final result.

You must've read about the Dem process, and you're entirely correct. The Republicans did a pretty much straight vote using paper at each site and reporting totals by precinct in drips and drabs- from what I understood.

Iowa is a strange place though. It seems the right side of the electorate skewed right-wing evangelical. The left side of the electorate skewed toward the democratic socialist view of things. They must have some crazy, vehement political arguments there! The two big beneficiaries were the candidates on those edges: Cruz and Sanders. I think other states will favor more centrist candidates, but we shall see.

And great graph. Wow! Trump's stock took a hit.

[Golfingdad]

19 minutes ago, RandallT said:

You must've read about the Dem process, and you're entirely correct. The Republicans did a pretty much straight vote using paper at each site and reporting totals by precinct in drips and drabs- from what I understood.

Whoops, my bad.  You're totally right.  I read up on how the Dem Caucus works and then for the Republican one wikipedia didn't really give many specifics.  Plus it's been many hours since I "learned" all that stuff, which is just enough time for me to forget half. 

19 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Iowa is a strange place though. It seems the right side of the electorate skewed right-wing evangelical.

And that should not surprise us.  I read this morning that Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus for GOP last time around and the time before that was Mike Huckabee.