What about Democrats and Democratic leaners? They were already low in January — at 32% — and, after dipping to 29% in February, they are back at 32%. So the question could be why were Republicans so upbeat back in January? Maybe just because they had so many options — seeming riches.
It is unclear from the data if partisans are reacting to the developments in their own party's nomination race, the other party's nomination race or both. Republicans' increasingly dour sentiments may be related to Trump -- either the increasing inevitability that he will gain his party's nomination, or the way controversial aspects of his campaign have dominated the news.... Another factor could be the increasingly contentious campaigns, particularly on the Republican side....
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
Because thanks to Trump, instead of hearing about policies, both foreign and economic, we are treated to grade school level insults. And it works! The process is thoroughly broken.
We all know what has them worried. After El Trumpo is nominated and fires the rest of the Party and Donors, there will be nobody left to riot in Cleveland but Soros' Paid Help.
Nothing seems familiar anymore. Too much Reality is happening at one time.
Maybe because of all the talk about Trump winning, and being cheated out of the nomination.
This is what I find so amusing about this cycle. Everything, from Trump to Kasich to Clinton to Sanders, is being delivered exactly as our founders designed it to be, but it seems now those liberties and their results are the last things many want.
Oh, if there were just some political Mom or Dad or social media platform or college dean or king to protect us from our decisions.
My guess is that most respondents probably defined "the process working as it should or not" based on the relative success or failure of their desired candidate. You know, the same way Americans seem to use the phrase "my vote counts" to mean that their desired candidate can/will get elected.
Since we have become a reality TV culture, I'm sure that there are some who have no problem with the election descending into a reality TV campaign. The rest of us are disgusted.
"Another factor could be the increasingly contentious campaigns, particularly on the Republican side, where personal attacks have been an almost daily occurrence and violence between supporters and protestors has broken out at some Trump rallies."
Could it also be the realization that the Republican front runner may have some psychological pathology? In addition, that a full half of the conservative base might just be as nuts as the front runner?
The last 4 days the level of Hate For Trump has been unrestrained by the Media talkers. They go on rants that ridicule Trump and profess shame at what Trump Hath Wrought, with their help.
But slimy Lyin' Ted is being anointed as Grand Saint of the Order of the Highest Rino. It's like they all have fallen in love with Ted overnight after The JEB kissed him.
I see Speaker Ryan reminding everyone where The Speaker of the House comes in the order of succession when Cruz and Trump bounce off of each other and Ryan declares they both lost and no Candidate remains unless the Compromise Speaker becomes the compromise President.
Trump is playing the role of Toto in the Wizard of Oz and of Upton Sinclair in The Jungle. The curtain has been rolled back to reveal the deceptions of the US political process. Our new insight into political sausage making is nauseating.
Republicans' increasingly dour sentiments may be related to Trump -- either the increasing inevitability that he will gain his party's nomination, or the way controversial aspects of his campaign have dominated the news. Trump is the least popular Republican nominee....
"least popular" links to Trump's Image Among Republicans Continues to Tilt Positive.
Maybe Republicans are dissatisfied with the way that the RNC appears to be trying to sabotage one of the candidates.
It is working, and Trump is winning fair and square.
I think the open primaries where Dems or Independents can vote, is stupid, though. Why invite non-party members to select the party nominee?
I would close primaries for each party.
The establishment, press, and hate mobs have done their best to discriminate, intimidate, and suppress the People. They become disoriented and desperate when People push back, hard.
After El Trumpo is nominated
Now that there is funny.
The primary system is increasingly a problem where the largest group of voters is independent (who generally don't participate in primaries). Parties can not strategically nominate the candidate they think most likely to attract those independent voters in the general election. The primary system seems to be making polarization worse (especially given the rising number of independents).
As for the non-reality TV aspects, the severe problems that were glaringly obvious 20 years ago continue to plague the process.
The problems begin with the beginning -- with the process starting a year and a half before the election, people are already sick and tired of all of the candidates. Add in the media making it all about a horse race from the start, which means it is a celebrity/popularity contest, and candidates that would probably make excellent presidents get weeded out before the first vote is cast.
Same problem with all these front-loaded primaries, made worse still with early voting. I'm certain that there are many people in those early states who regret their votes now and would vote differently today.
Then there is the serious problem of these winner-take-all states where the "winner" can be someone with a mere plurality of the vote, rather than a majority. So we have already had the case of someone taking all of a state's delegates with more than two-thirds of voters rejecting that person.
Now we have that same dynamic being argued for the convention, with people wanting to redefine "majority" of delegates to mean a minority if the person has the most votes, even though the majority is opposed to him.
There is also the problem of the debates, where year-in and year-out the media hijacking the process by making the debates about them more than the candidates, preventing voters from gaining any real knowledge about candidates because of gotcha questions and biased questions posed from an exclusive Democrat point of view.
Problems like these and more have been known and bemoaned for years. Yet the party establishment on both sides either do nothing about them or they make them worse.
So of course the electorate is disgusted and frustrated and fed up.
And don't get me started on open primaries.
(Although I will admit to crossing over myself some years in the primary in an attempt to defeat certain candidates of the other party.)
"and being cheated out of the nomination."
There is increasing concern about statements that two problems are coming.
One is the Rules Committee at the convention, which is dominated by party elders. They may be able to change rules and do a deal to exclude Trump if he has even a majority of delegates.
Two, is a concern that many delegates selected by Trump voters may in fact not be Trump fans and could become the modern "faithless electors" feared by the electoral college critics.
Conventions have featured previous delegate challenges.
I wrote above: "It is working, and Trump is winning fair and square."
This is true on a technical level. On a political level, though, I fear that it is not working well for the GOP. The tone is awful. Why are candidates talking smack about each other's wives? Is this a locker room or Presidential election?
More so, anyone can see that the more the GOP fight amongst themselves, the more Obama's approval rates inch up, and the more Hillary's lead over Trump in the general, at least according to RCP, grows. Hillary now beats Trump in the polls 50-39.
How do Trump supporters envision him turning this around, I would politely ask?
#CruzSexScandal
Yikes, more reason for people to be unimpressed with our election process. I wonder who is behind this?
It's working fine as a political process. Some people are not liking the results. They are the ones who feel that a process that assures the results they favor is the only one that works.
The opinions of Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulis might apply here. He says that Daddy Trump is the necessary antidote to political correctness that is suddenly allowing people who have been lied about for 30 years by Politicians and College teachers to have their views heard.
The campaign is all a culture war; not a policy choice at all.Therefore it is upsetting to the winners to see themselves as the losers now.
That is why Trump makes both sides of the Liberal/Conservative fake struggle irrelevant to voters.
FullMoon said...Maybe because of all the talk about Trump winning, and being cheated out of the nomination.
That's exactly it. I now despise my once former heroes since I have learned that their commitment to the principle of majority rule only matters when it serves their purposes.
Paul Ryan is an arrogant douchebag.
An even this morning, Scott Walker, who I have respected for years says that at an open convention someone may be nominated who isn't even currently running. I'm sure he'd be thinking differently if he were leading in delegates, and someone wanted to pull the rug on his voters.
Of course it's not working as it should! The process has become so toxic that good men don't run, and we're left with narcissists and sociopaths.
We need a cleaner process or we'll never get better candidates.
Re: open primaries--you do realize though that even in closed primary states, anyone can change their party registration weeks before the voting, so all an open primary does is allow people to effectively pick which primary they want to vote in at the last minute. It's not like you have to pass an ideological test before registering with a party.
Why are Republicans unhappy with the process? Gee could it be that the fight lately has been a literal penis measuring contest and a "who's wife is hotter" comparison? This isn't exactly the Lincoln Douglas debates.
The Dems feelings on their own race has to do with their party setting up a coronation for a deeply unpopular candidate. None of this should be a surprise except that even a third of each party isn't disgusted.
The problem is not the election process, it is the present governing process.
When the main activity of gov't is taking from some and giving to others, you're not going to have a good "process."
Bay Area Guy said...
I think the open primaries where Dems or Independents can vote, is stupid, though. Why invite non-party members to select the party nominee?
It's not necessarily a choice, in at least some cases open primaries are mandated by state law.
The US political structure and process are poorly designed to operate a highly centralized, highly bureaucratized, Schumpeterian-moribund welfare state. All sides are extremely desperate because there is so much at stake. The winners of these elections can make or break entire categories of industries, regions of the country, classes of people. Losing is not an acceptable option. Everything becomes political and partisan, such as the courts. The only check or balance can only be achieved through just one political victory that gives some control of the monstrous state structure.
Parliamentary systems offer better and more timely checks and balances under such conditions, and make compromises possible. But this is still just managing decline.
The nature of the political struggle is an inevitable consequence of the underlying conditions.
"After El Trumpo is nominated and fires the rest of the Party and Donors"
He can't fire the party. The donors? Well, he'll actually need them. Once the networks stop covering his rallies uninterrupted (which they will, ratings or no), it will cost money for him to get his message out. And he's not paying the billion dollars it will cost to do that.
Real Republican Man says:
Seventy percent of republicans feel that the election process is not working.
Is that seventy percent people angry at how Trump has been treated?
Or is that seventy percent the Real Republicans who Know Better?
You're damned right it is Real Republicans who Know Better. Real Republicans have a right to be angry: the way Jeb was treated was a Disgrace.
As President, Jeb could've kept the Real Republicans doing what Real Republicans do: being Prudent.
But no: the Rat-Fuckers had to Rat Fuck.
Imprudently.
(Note: I can't take credit for 'Rat-Fuckers': a True Real Republican posted that in a previous thread).
While not the Lawn Party-destroying rodents I previously warned about -- Rat-Fuckers are Real.
The Rodents burrow beneath Decency and then the Rat-Fuckers fuck them. I am not sure how that even works, physically, but it must be disgusting, even if the Rat-Fucker has a very tiny cock and the rat is a rather big rat.
Or maybe Rat-Fuckers put the Rat up their Ass like Richard Gere, who is obviously not a Real Republican.
Let me put this plainly: if you put live Rats up your Ass you are NOR a Real Republican. Don't give me your Libertarian bullshit on this one.
And anybody that would put a live rat up their Ass would certainly have no problem with Shitting in the Caviar.
I am Keeping a List.
I am Laslo.
I am happy that in this election race, immigration policy became a major issue. It's about time.
I don't understand why the Republican Party does not conduct debates that enable voters to compare the candidates' policy positions.
* The same policy question is posed to each candidate.
* Each candidate has the same amount of total time to answer questions.
I stopped watching the "debates" -- because they really are individual interviews.
I am Laslo.
3/25/16, 12:00 PM
NOR should be NOT.
I am Laslo.
"Does the way the presidential campaign is being conducted make you feel as though the election process is working as it should, or not?"
Should we consider allegations of cheating on wives part of the way the "campaign is being conducted"? I wonder how the numbers would change is the poll were started today.
This is a bad questions.
They should have asked:
"Does the way the presidential election is working out make you feel as though the presidential election process is set up the way it should be, or not?"
Brando said...3/25/16, 11:41 AM
Re: open primaries--you do realize though that even in closed primary states, anyone can change their party registration weeks before the voting
Not in New York. The latest time to change party registration in New York State in order to be able to vote in the second party's primary is the day before the previous November election, which, as a practical matter, means some date in late October.
Actually, last year, it was October 9. This is not Pennsylvania.
http://gothamist.com/2015/10/06/democracy_bureacracy.php
People who register for the first time in New York State have till today, March 25, 2016, to register in a party and vote in the April 19 Presidential primary.
The primary was originally scheduled to take place on Tuesday, April 26, to coincide with Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delware primaries, creating a Northeastern Super Tuesday which left out New Jersey which is always last like California. But it was moved up a week because it falls in the middle of Passover - not a non-working day, but many Jews take vacations - leave the house for Passover to avoid too much preparation - or take day trips with their children, who are off from school. Instrumental in this was then-Assemblyman Sheldon Silver, after he was deposed as Speaker but before he was convicted and automatically lost his assembly seat. He still retained influence, partly because of his wide ranging procedural and government knowledge. He still had enough influence to get his choice picked as the Democratic candidate in the special election to replace him, which will also take place April 19. There is no primary in special elections. There is still a race because some other other candidates have other parties' ballot lines.
The policy proposals are always based on bullshit assumptions and innumeracy, so I enjoy just watching Trump wing it on the policy proposals and hurl insults. This has been an extremely entertaining election cycle on the GOP and even a bit on the Dem side as Sanders proposals are obvious unicorn farts to even 12 year olds. Trump's The Wall is far more plausible than free college tuition and Medicare for all.
Cruz patrol and surveils all all Muslim neighborhoods was hands down the dumbest proposal of this campaign.
Heard on the radio on a recent trip: 79000 people in Pennsylvania have switched parties, from Democratic to Republican, in the past couple months.
Are these people satisfied, or not, with their party?
But why should someone have to join a party they may not agree with in order to have an effective vote?
Brando:
It's not like you have to pass an ideological test before registering with a party.
Some parties try that - the test being would they support a majority of their candidates - but it can only be used in exceptional circumstances.
mccullough said...3/25/16, 12:40 PM
Cruz patrol and surveils all all Muslim neighborhoods was hands down the dumbest proposal of this campaign.
He was forced into it because he couldn't propose detective work, because he'd opposed extension of the Patriot Act.
NO SPYING allowed.
"The policy proposals are always based on bullshit assumptions and innumeracy"
Precisely. This sort of thing is all pretense. It is pseudo-rationalism.
Police are free to follow people in public places, take audio video, saves drop, etc. after Feb 26, 1993, the FBI began surveilling some of the 2,000 mosques in the US and those efforts were stepped up after 9/11 and have continued under Obama. 1% of Muslims in the US are on the terror watch list. More are added everyday.
It seems a bit dangerous to accept the idea that "when I don't get my way it means the process is broken." If you apply that to life generally you get...Leftism I guess, or at any rate a life of grievance and self-identified victimhood.
Having said that I think both Dems and Repubs have good reasons for feeling like their parties aren't working well...but the mere fact that the leading candidates from both parties have very high unfavorable ratings does not in itself mean the process is "broken."
The epiphany for Republicans is that many state primaries were open to Democrats, whose votes proved essential to Trump’s victories. These Democrats are in fact stronger Trump supporters than Republicans (see Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat, a New York Times piece buried on New Year’s Eve). Many ordinary Republicans find this outcome to be fundamentally unfair.
"How do Trump supporters envision him turning this around, I would politely ask?"
The Hillary stories will keep coming and Trump, once he has disposed 0f Cruz, can pivot to issues that matter. He has already mentioned some that have been distorted in the reporting.
One reason is this.
A House Republican who has endorsed Donald Trump for president says other lawmakers are backing the businessman behind the scenes.
“Many members are supporting Trump quietly,” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) told New York radio host Bob Lonsberry on Wednesday in an interview, according to a report by BuzzFeed News.
“They don’t like Ted Cruz at all, and for various reasons unique to their particular congressional districts they’re not formally endorsing Mr. Trump.”
Collins endorsed Trump in February, becoming one of the first lawmakers to do so.
He said Wednesday he hasn't received "negative feedback" from other Republicans for the endorsement, which he made after Trump's victory in the Nevada caucuses.
“In fact, pretty much on the House floor people know he will be our nominee. With very few exceptions, four or five individuals, everyone’s saying they will support the nominee. [Speaker] Paul Ryan has said that," he said.
Hmmm
Then there is this story, which will get bigger in spite of the MSM
Judicial Watch today released 276 pages of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.” The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed. The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
The corruption just keeps rolling out.
Limbaugh pointed out on his program this AM that a brokered convention is not intended only to stop Trump, but to stop Cruz as well. A brokered convention controlled by the GOP establishment will not produce either Trump or Cruz as a presidential candidate.
I think that Limbaugh is correct.
"A brokered convention controlled by the GOP establishment will not produce either Trump or Cruz as a presidential candidate."
If this happened, and I doubt it will, Trump could bolt and run a third party and draw all the disaffected from both parties and win. Then, how would he govern ?
It would be a disaster for the country.
Not even the GOPe would be that stupid.
Michael K said...If this happened, and I doubt it will, Trump could bolt and run a third party and draw all the disaffected from both parties and win. Then, how would he govern ?
He could bolt, sure, but could he win? I doubt it--to do so he'd have to change his message and messaging quite a bit (to have any chance to pull in disaffected Dems).
Going by Scott Adams' theory identity beats reason, so Trump would need to persuade pissed off Bernie-supporters to identify with Trump...and the way he's going so far I'm not sure he'd be able to do that (or, really, willing). I mean, who knows, but it seems unlikely (not that getting to this point hasn't been pretty unlikely already).
He could bolt, sure, but could he win?
No. Wouldn't you think a candidate who is supposedly strong enough to win 3rd party be showing growing strength at this point in the process? I;m just not seeing it. He's down 4 points in the upcoming Wisconsin primary. Looks like yet another loss for a candidate who is supposedly leading a preference cascade.
"he'd have to change his message and messaging quite a bit (to have any chance to pull in disaffected Dems)."
I think he is doing that now. Bernie supporters are heavily young people who probably know his message is nonsense but are hoping for a miracle with student debt and poor employment prospects. Some might be open to a better message. Of course, Bernie might be the Democrat candidate. Then all bets are off.
It's working exactly as it's designed to work.
1. Raise the bar for entry so that only the wealthy can finance the campaigns.
2. Restrict competition from third parties by making it nearly impossible to get on the ballot.
3. Encourage a compliant news media to focus on personal attacks, emotional pleas, and polls instead of the issues and the candidates' positions on them.
Result: A largely uninformed populace voting on a pre-selected slate of candidates funded by the people interested in keeping taxpayer money flowing their way.
It would be a disaster for the country.
Not even the GOPe would be that stupid.
Let's hope not. I don't see a 3rd party bid by Trump, but rather a party meltdown. I, at least, would probably sit out the election, despite my vehement dislike of Hillary, if anyone besides Trump or Cruz (or, maybe possibly Kasich) gets the nomination. Despite what Chelsea thinks, this is the one way that the Republicans could potentially lose the House, and would more likely than now, lose the Senate.
Many of those opposing Trump and Cruz are doing so because they have money at stake. We are supposed to be equal here in this country, and that is far from equal, when .1% and above can get away with bending the system to their benefit. Most of us would call it cheating. But, that is what the GOPe has done for us - with the Tea Party, et al., often voting them into office, and then trying to explain why they were supporting immigration "reform", higher spending, etc., essentially telling us that we weren't smart enough to understand why they had to do the bidding of the lobbyists and their like, instead of the bidding of those who sent them to DC. Throwing the nomination to anyone else is the sort of inside cheating that so many of us despise. Which is why there will be hell to pay, if they get away with it.
Gusty Winds: "That's exactly it. I now despise my once former heroes since I have learned that their commitment to the principle of majority rule only matters when it serves their purposes."
You've actually hit on what makes this election season so difficult for Republicans. There isn't a majority. No single Republican candidate has majority support. Trump is currently closest but it's not clear that he will have won the majority of delegates prior to the convention.
If he had a majority of delegates the convention would be a non-issue. He doesn't yet.
I think the process is working as designed, but I'm miserable about the results. A country of 300+ million, and these are the best candidates we can come up with?
This isn't just slight dissatisfaction. I've never been so depressed about an election. I'm #neverTrump, #neverHillary, #neverSanders, #maybeCruz, #maybeKasichButHeDoesntHaveAChance.
"It is unclear from the data if partisans are reacting to the developments in their own party's nomination race, the other party's nomination race or both."
The ambiguity in the answers resulting from the questions being asked was the intended outcome.
In this way the MSM has wiggle-room to announce "what it really means" and it's usually something along the lines of Amanda's mental meanderings.
Amanda: "#CruzSexScandal"
The party of Bill & Hill and Huma/Anthony would like to take a moment to discuss sex scandals.
Another ill-thought out scheme similar to -Japanese ally with German-supremacists in ill-thought out scheme-.
Bill Roberts: "A country of 300+ million, and these are the best candidates we can come up with?"
No, these are not the best candidates "we can come up with".
These are the candidates who self-selected themselves into the process.
Or, as Rhythm and Balls might argue: This is what 8 years of Reagan and all that has happened since has led to.
@Drago,
I'm sure the evangelicals will forgive Trump for "spilling the beans".
"Many of those opposing Trump and Cruz are doing so because they have money at stake. "
Yes and that is most of Hillary's support, too. The Democrats are an amalgam of interest groups that often have contradictory agendas but band together to split the loot as best they can.
The GOP consists of millions of self reliant voters and a class of parasites that call themselves "public servants."
If this Cruz scandal is not true and Trump is connected, I don't know what I will do.
When Garry Hart imploded, it seemed that he was punished for the stupidity as the sex scandal. Now, I don't think anything turns off Democrats anymore. Hillary should be in prison.
Amana, it has certainly been established that the left have forgiven Bill his astonishing number of sexual assaults and Hillary's role in destroying Bills victims.
Much like your ignoring muslim mass murder, mass sexual enslavement and extermination of homosexuals.
'cuz Liberal logic!
Republicans are embarrassed by Trump, the squalidness of his campaign and saddened that there are so few survivors of the food fight.
I don't think for a minute that Cruz should be punished by conservatives for his alleged affairs. He could have repented and sincerely vowed to sin no more afterall. What should be troubling to most people would be that Cruz runs as a devout Christian and that would make him look like as big of a hypocrite as Josh Duggar, again IF this accusation were to be true. I would like to think it's just more underhanded low down dirty tricks from the Trump camp. I guess we shall see in the next few days. One has got to feel bad for Heidi Cruz either way.
The coming weeks will tell whether Lyin' Ted is also laying the DC Ladies Ted. Not that there is anything wrong with that. As President a Hot blooded, aggressive Cuban Ted would be better at leading than a Cold hearted, perfectionist Canadian Ted. JFK was good at doing the ladies too.
Amanda: "Could it also be the realization that the Republican front runner may have some psychological pathology? In addition, that a full half of the conservative base might just be as nuts as the front runner?"
Whereas the Dem base is happily choosing between a pathological liar who is the Queen of the Grifters and an aging, innumerate Marxist who is unaware that terrorism exists. Nothing nuts about them!
Someone upstream said "Trump is winning this fair and square"... LOLing.
Amanda: "He could have repented and sincerely vowed to sin no more afterall. What should be troubling to most people would be that Cruz runs as a devout Christian and that would make him look like as big of a hypocrite as Josh Duggar ...."
Here's a little Christian wisdom by and for the heathen crowd. If a Christian sins, repents, and vows to sin no more, according to the Heathen Church of St. Amanda there is no forgiveness and the sinner cannot forevermore claim to be a "devout Christian."
Silly heathens.
Does the way the presidential campaign is being conducted make you feel as though the election process is working as it should, or not?
IVANKA HITS DRIVE IN HEELS
Trump aide Katrina Pierson ( one of the women identified as a Cruz sex affair partner) "spilled the beans" on Heidi Cruz.
Between these latest accusations and the Cruz sex scandal thing, it looks like Trump is trying to make Cruz and his wife look like hypocrites. This sort of politicking is only appealing to a small segment of our society. Trump's negatives will only rise in response to this sort of thing. That's OK, only ensures an even bigger win for us Democrats.
The $500,000 donation by Cruz to Carly might be part of a smoking gun.
I think the Enquirer must have more or they are playing with the suicide of the business. They might be waiting for Cruz to double down and then drop the next shoe. That's what the video kid did with the abortion mills.
"In addition, that a full half of the conservative base might just be as nuts as the front runner?"
I hear crap like this from self-styled 'progressives' all of the time. It is anti-democratic (how can you trust the people to manage public policy?), and it fits their binary mentality. The Dems are the party of goodness and the GOP is the party of evilness (see virtually any comment by R&B for non-Amanda examples of this).
If I thought that half of the GOP or Dem base was nuts, I would move to another country.
Well Terry, all one has to do is take a look at how Democrats are running their campaigns and contrast it to how Republicans are running theirs to get a hint at who is more principled and decent. I did say only about half of the conservative base may be nuts. Take heart, there is the other half of the conservative base who might be able to save you from yourselves.
I am not 'conservative base', Amanda. I am not even a Republican.
You are too ignorant to share conversational space with adults.
Terry, well ya coulda fooled me. Every single one of your comments sounds as if you are indeed one of the nutty half.
Blogger Amanda said...
Someone upstream said "Trump is winning this fair and square"... LOLing.
Just out of curiosity. How do you suspend logic ,reason and responsibility? Is it a dietary supliment, some mantra you learned, what? You seem to have slightly more than two digit IQ, after all you can type. I'm interested in knowing, seriously.
When you look at Hilary Clinton what do you see?
I wonder if the media will reach to those underage girls that were procured by Epstein and given to Bill for his entertainment?
My fear is that if the media does do that Hillary will go into her standard "destroy Billy's victims mode" again.
Which would be a shame as having been pimped out to Bill as underage girls is already a horrific punishment.
I did fool you, Amanda, because you are an ignorant person. Like many people on the left, you believe that repeating what you have been taught is 'smart.'
It's the wrong question. The issue is not whether this year's election process is working. Rather the question is how have the prior election processes managed to cough up the political hairballs we now have in Washington?
I think that both the Trump and Sanders supporters are a new HEA party--aka "Had Enough Already". I don't happen to agree with either group, but I can understand their frustration. We've got a group of Republican congresscritters of various stripes who say one thing out on the campaign trail--and promptly turn into members of the same old same old Uniparty once they cross the Potomac and take their seats.
As for the mainstream Democrats---as my liberal San Francisco older sister would say, "Oh Puhleeze". In short, anybody with an ounce of common sense would look at the festering pustulent mess in Washington and say, "Time for a change". But I can't see that the system will hack some political hairball up who will actually change anything.
And as for President and First Lady? They lead a life style that would make Marie Antoinette blush--and babble nonsense that poor old King George III (in one of his fits of madness) would be embarrassed to say.
But other than that, I'm having a heck of a fine day today.
"to get a hint at who is more principled and decent"
Hilarious. I just think it hilarious to see such blindness. Who do you work for Amanda ? The teachers' union?
You wanted primary elections as a more democratic way of selecting nominees, and you got what you wanted (and deserve!).
I agree with Bay Area Guy that the "tone is awful" But I'd take issue with the way he worded one question, writing, "Why are candidates talking smack about each other's wives?" I keep seeing variations on that theme around the 'net and on tv, and someone has even done a story about the myth of reciprocity embedded in the sentiment that Trump and Cruz are going after one another's wives. I would like to point out that, despite Trump's usual disingenuous "he started it, I just hit back" protestations, Cruz has not been attacking Trump's wife or even threatening to do so.
I am hardly a Cruz apologist-- just as I will never vote for Trump, I will almost certainly never vote for Cruz. I am sort of at the Lindsey Graham level of reluctant support--- he's better than Trump for the party, but only marginally so. But fair is fair. An independent anti-Trump PAC made an ad featuring Melonia Trump from back in her modeling days. Legally Cruz can't coordinate with the PACS and I believe him when he says he had nothing to do with the ad. If Trump thinks he did, then Trump should be filing a complaint with the election commission because that is a serious legal and ethical breech. Note that Trump keeps saying "Cruz is behind it" but doesn't address that issue.
In response to that ad, Trump fired off a tweet threatening to "spill the beans" on Heidi Cruz, apparently as payback for the offense to his own wife. Cruz responded by calling Trump a coward for going after Heidi, but did not make any derogatory remarks about Mrs. Trump. He left her out of it. He later said the PAC ad was offensive. When Trump re-tweeted the 'dueling photos' tweet making heidi look less attractive than Melania, Cruz responded that "your wife is beautiful" before giving a full-throated defense of his own wife and warning Trump to back off.
So how is that candidates [plural attacking 'each other's' wives? That makes it sond as if Cruz is as culpable as Trump here, when clearly, whatever other flaws he has, he is not in this case. He has not insulted or demeaned Trump's wife. He's said ridiculous things about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods and is probably more than happy to have that pushed off the front page, but he hasn't stooped to taking pot-shots at wives of candidates.
Is Cruz's response to the sex affair stories as 'garbage' a non-denial denial?
Always beware the passive voice.
Michael Savage spills the beans on Trump ties to Cruz sex scandal story.
Nothing says 'reliable' like a Michael Savage byline!
That guy hates Republicans more than Amanda does . . .
Who do you work for Amanda ? The teachers' union?
The more I see her comment here, the more I am convinced that she is doing this for money. Or, at least has been ideologically tasked with dropping by and dumping her canned comments. She (it could be a "he", but I suspect that the gender is correct here) has admitted to being a union member, and that is about it. When I accused her of being a Hillary voter, she denied it, and, I think, claimed to be conservative who was unhappy with the current group of Republican candidates. But, this just feels wrong. She sounds to the left of some of our resident leftists like Freder and Cook. I just get the feeling that she is commenting here as a job. She could merely be a member of a teachers' union. Or, some other public employee union. Private employee union member just doesn't feel right. The only people I know who think so simplistically are either college students or government workers. Her inability to argue very well (and keep on topic) suggests fairly young, meaning probably in her mid-20s. She hides her Blogger profile, which suggests (esp. given the content of her comments) that she is a professional troll.
Amanda - in order to convince us that you are not a professional troll, some more information about you would probably be useful. Start with your profession. Also, maybe the decade of your age. And, maybe the last time you voted for a Republican (and who you voted for, unless the answer is never), plus maybe your last several Presidential votes. Links to something of yours on the Internet would also be helpful (BTW, I was impressed recently following Michael K's profile back to his blog - which was very impressive).
I do not know why everybody (TV pundits as well as commenters) are so eager to accept that the first ad was not from Cruz, "just a PAC," but anyway, Trump's response works just as well if it was directed at this PAC rather than Cruz himself.
"You attack my wife, we will attack your candidate's wife." Or as Obama said, "You hit us, we will punch back twice as hard."
And I now see a pundit "defending" Heidi Cruz against an attack that Trump has not made. Just what is going on here?
Hagar said...
I do not know why everybody (TV pundits as well as commenters) are so eager to accept that the first ad was not from Cruz, "just a PAC," but anyway, Trump's response works just as well if it was directed at this PAC rather than Cruz himself.
What a stupid comment.
Tell us, right now, what is the evidence that Cruz had anything to do with the ad featuring the partially-nude photos of Melania Trump that she posed for and got paid for? Cruz said he didn't. The SuperPAC says Cruz had nothing to do with it. The law prohibits all private "communication" and "coordination" between candidates and SuperPACs. No one anywhere has pointed to any evidence of any coordination. And, on top of it all, the Make America Awesome Super PAC has the most minimal funding and no notable support. (They've got about $19,000 in total; not enough to produce any sort of television campaign, local or national.)
So now you tell us exactly why you don't accept the Cruz statement on this story.
And then, tell us why Trump attacked Heidi Cruz and not the Super PAC.
In your next comment, you asserted that this was "an attack that Trump has not made." Wrong! Trump most definitely attacked Heidi Cruz. Trump Tweeted (not any "Re-Tweet) that Ted Cruz ought to be careful or Trump might "have to spill the beans" on Heidi. What does that mean? Any sentient being would understand that as, "I know something about your wife that is private, and I'll publish it..." Do what I say, and nobody gets hurt...
So, that is "what is going on here." Any more questions?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा