Trump

The Juggler

PJ_Soul said:

The Juggler said:

Wow ratings far below the '08 RNC and flat from '12. Never seen a candidate so obsessed with tv ratings like Trump is so this must be killing him.

SAD!

I think this was inevitable and predictable and doesn't really say much of anything. People watch the conventions to see who wins, to see if there will be an upset, whatever. This year neither convention has that draw. All either convention is is a four day pep rally for the nominee, which is boring.

I agree it doesn't mean much...however Trump is the only candidate, probably ever, who touts ratings for things he's in as some type of level of success. So it's just naturally funny to see ratings for his biggest moment be much less than what was hoped for.

PJ_Soul

So Elizabeth Warren said that she thinks the Democratic party and Americans in general are really underestimating Trump's ability to win this election. I think of Warren as someone who really knows what she's talking about.

PJ_Soul

The Juggler said:

PJ_Soul said:

The Juggler said:

Wow ratings far below the '08 RNC and flat from '12. Never seen a candidate so obsessed with tv ratings like Trump is so this must be killing him.

SAD!

I think this was inevitable and predictable and doesn't really say much of anything. People watch the conventions to see who wins, to see if there will be an upset, whatever. This year neither convention has that draw. All either convention is is a four day pep rally for the nominee, which is boring.

I agree it doesn't mean much...however Trump is the only candidate, probably ever, who touts ratings for things he's in as some type of level of success. So it's just naturally funny to see ratings for his biggest moment be much less than what was hoped for.

His speech was 74 minutes long. No better way to get people to turn the channel than to give a 74 minute long televized speech, and you're right, he may be disappointed. He is probably drunk from his new found percieved power and thought that everyone would be fucking riveted when he got up on stage and blabbled on and on and on about basically nothing for well over an hour, lol.

what dreams

PJ_Soul said:

The Juggler said:

Wow ratings far below the '08 RNC and flat from '12. Never seen a candidate so obsessed with tv ratings like Trump is so this must be killing him.

SAD!

I think this was inevitable and predictable and doesn't really say much of anything. People watch the conventions to see who wins, to see if there will be an upset, whatever. This year neither convention has that draw. All either convention is this year is a four day pep rally for the nominee, which is boring.

There hasn't been a convention in my lifetime where there was even a chance of an upset. Nobody watches to see who will win.

PJ_Soul

what dreams said:

PJ_Soul said:

The Juggler said:

Wow ratings far below the '08 RNC and flat from '12. Never seen a candidate so obsessed with tv ratings like Trump is so this must be killing him.

SAD!

I think this was inevitable and predictable and doesn't really say much of anything. People watch the conventions to see who wins, to see if there will be an upset, whatever. This year neither convention has that draw. All either convention is this year is a four day pep rally for the nominee, which is boring.

There hasn't been a convention in my lifetime where there was even a chance of an upset. Nobody watches to see who will win.

I know plenty of people still had hopes for Hillary in 2008 (founded hopes or not). But what I really mean is there is a sense of competition. There is more than one nominee there usually. When there is only one nominee even showing up there is no draw, no drama, not even the illusion of competition.

PJfanwillneverleave1

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

what dreams

PJ_Soul said:

what dreams said:

PJ_Soul said:

The Juggler said:

Wow ratings far below the '08 RNC and flat from '12. Never seen a candidate so obsessed with tv ratings like Trump is so this must be killing him.

SAD!

I think this was inevitable and predictable and doesn't really say much of anything. People watch the conventions to see who wins, to see if there will be an upset, whatever. This year neither convention has that draw. All either convention is this year is a four day pep rally for the nominee, which is boring.

There hasn't been a convention in my lifetime where there was even a chance of an upset. Nobody watches to see who will win.

I know plenty of people still had hopes for Hillary in 2008 (founded hopes or not). But what I really mean is there is a sense of competition. There is more than one nominee there usually. When there is only one nominee even showing up there is no draw, no drama, not even the illusion of competition.

Huh? I'm sorry, you really just don't know what you're talking about here.

All the nominees are usually there, yes. The loser is always invited to speak. Sanders, who will be there this week, will follow the tradition. Why are you writing as if he won't be? Past presidents, spouses, children. This year is absolutely no different than any other year.

Now, it was incredibly unusual for Kasich and Rubio and the Bushes and the Romneys to not be there in Cleveland. That's why the damn thing was a dud, in my view. They had to fill so much air time since the traditional speakers didn't come, and none of their chosen speakers were even remotely inspiring. The so-called Cruz delegate controversy wasn't even that interesting.

I think people didn't watched because they are so turned off by this election. They're sick to death of both the Donald and the Hillary. I predict this will be the lowest voter turn out in history. People are done. We cannot continue to have four-year campaign cycles in this country. I mean, Cruz is already reportedly getting his machine in place for 2020. It's ridiculous. If the convention is anti-climactic, it's because they've all been fucking running for president since 2012.

mrussel1

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

Yeah, they are all based on his feelings, not empirical data. Let's start with the fact that women are much more reliable as voters than men. So if you have to get 7 out of 10 that are ALIVE, let alone registered, then that's a tough climb to start.

Second, his first point says ""All he has to do is win those four states." Wow. That's fucking deep right there. I mean what a political genius to pull this one out. So how does he win those states? What does his ground game look like? How deeply is he staffed for the phones and the pavement campaign?

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

I predict there's about the same likelihood of seeing some "Michael Moore is an idiot" stuff here as there is we'll see some more photos from your Trump collection.

As you can guess, I don't think MM is an idiot but I think he's forgetting that a) women vote and b) not everyone in America is an angry white dude and c) when push comes to shove, when it comes down to it if Trump looks like he has any chance at all many of us who would like to vote third party will vote against Trump and Moore is a pretty smart guy so I'm guessing that is his motivation for these statements anyway. And why not? What rational human being would really want to chance having a blow hard like Trump in office? No way.

InHiding80

Not surprised ratings are down. People would rather follow comedic jokes about it on Twitter. The only way I'd watch either convention is for the Rifftrax guys to cover it. The special editions of Bill Maher and the Jon Stewart appearance on Colbert were the best ways to keep up.

I work late hours so I couldn't watch anyways.

Degeneratefk

InHiding80 said:

Not surprised ratings are down. People would rather follow comedic jokes about it on Twitter. The only way I'd watch either convention is for the Rifftrax guys to cover it.

I work late hours so I couldn't watch anyways.

Doesn't you really think that's why they aren't watching? I would guess it's because people are disgusted with the direction the party has turned.

PJfanwillneverleave1

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

Yeah, they are all based on his feelings, not empirical data. Let's start with the fact that women are much more reliable as voters than men. So if you have to get 7 out of 10 that are ALIVE, let alone registered, then that's a tough climb to start.

Second, his first point says ""All he has to do is win those four states." Wow. That's fucking deep right there. I mean what a political genius to pull this one out. So how does he win those states? What does his ground game look like? How deeply is he staffed for the phones and the pavement campaign?

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64.
All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states.
He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top.

Cliffy6745

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

Yeah, they are all based on his feelings, not empirical data. Let's start with the fact that women are much more reliable as voters than men. So if you have to get 7 out of 10 that are ALIVE, let alone registered, then that's a tough climb to start.

Second, his first point says ""All he has to do is win those four states." Wow. That's fucking deep right there. I mean what a political genius to pull this one out. So how does he win those states? What does his ground game look like? How deeply is he staffed for the phones and the pavement campaign?

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64.
All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states.
He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top.

Big times article about how he has basically no path to victory without Florida. One scenario where he loses Florida and wins the election.

Please stop with the pictures. Seriously. It's incredibly annoying and adds no value whatsoever.

Degeneratefk

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

Yeah, they are all based on his feelings, not empirical data. Let's start with the fact that women are much more reliable as voters than men. So if you have to get 7 out of 10 that are ALIVE, let alone registered, then that's a tough climb to start.

Second, his first point says ""All he has to do is win those four states." Wow. That's fucking deep right there. I mean what a political genius to pull this one out. So how does he win those states? What does his ground game look like? How deeply is he staffed for the phones and the pavement campaign?

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64.
All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states.
He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top.

mrussel1

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

So now that everyone has filled a page with posts about this low ratings scandal and has gotten it out of their system let's take a look at this.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Anyone disagree with any of the points? And please spare the rhetoric of credible news source and Michael Moore is an idiot stuff.
Why are these pointed reasons wrong?

Yeah, they are all based on his feelings, not empirical data. Let's start with the fact that women are much more reliable as voters than men. So if you have to get 7 out of 10 that are ALIVE, let alone registered, then that's a tough climb to start.

Second, his first point says ""All he has to do is win those four states." Wow. That's fucking deep right there. I mean what a political genius to pull this one out. So how does he win those states? What does his ground game look like? How deeply is he staffed for the phones and the pavement campaign?

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64.
All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states.
He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top.

" />

No shit. And HRC has even more paths to victory. That isn't expert analysis, that's an impressive grasp of the obvious.

Gern Blansten

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/a-third-woman-alleges-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-donald-trump/

Wednesday, in the midst of the Republican National Convention, new allegations emerged of sexual assault committed by Donald Trump. This is the third woman who has accused the GOP presidential nominee of sexual assault.

The latest allegations of unwanted sexual contact by Trump come from Jill Harth, a makeup artist and business associate of the billionaire in the early 1990s. According to Harth, Trump sexually harassed her on numerous occasions, including cornering her in his daughter Ivanka’s bedroom and attempting to have sex with her. In 1997, Harth filed a lawsuit detailing Trump’s alleged repeated efforts to force her to have sex with him, as well as a number of other outrageous and inappropriate behaviors.

Harth, who gave an interview to the Guardian earlier this week, says she first met Trump back in 1992, when she and her business partner and then boyfriend George Houraney were trying to recruit Trump as a partner in their beauty pageant event. The New York Times cites a 1996 deposition in which Harth describes their first meeting with Trump, when Houraney gave a business presentation to woo Trump into becoming a financial backer of the project. According to Harth, that marked the first of Trump’s many unwanted sexual advances.

well that's nice

The Juggler

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

--Donald J Trump...just a few short years ago

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

PJfanwillneverleave1

The Juggler said:

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

--Donald J Trump...just a few short years ago

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Blasphemy

InHiding80

The Juggler said:

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

--Donald J Trump...just a few short years ago

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

What's the name of that 1989 Cameron Crowe movie?

PJfanwillneverleave1

InHiding80 said:

The Juggler said:

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

--Donald J Trump...just a few short years ago

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

What's the name of that 1989 Cameron Crowe movie?

He says lots of things. Not just anything.
It resonates with people like you and I.
Like I said IH80 we could not be closer on our views.