ray

You realize that the poll was mostly conducted before Trump's gaffe, yet you offer it as part of your argument that his comments about McCain will not implode his campaign. You do realize that the date a poll is released is different than the date a poll is taken, right?

Which gaffe?
Its one after the other. And yet his popularity grows within the republican party.
I do realize that the effects of his dissing of McCain aren't in this poll.
I just don't think there will be that much of an effect. McCain was not a favorite of the tea party, and that's whom I think is the heart of the Trump support.

If i were a Republican moderate I'd be mightily disappointed that it took Trump dissing McCain to get the other candidates (other than Cruz) and the Party and major media to turn on him... The fact that the response didn't come after his comments about immigrants is whats going to hurt the party.

I don't know when Redscape 4 is ... but I think Trump will either hang in till the first primaries like everyone ... or leave and run as a third party candidate. He can't win. But he doesn't know that.

Ray Jay wrote:Trump has already insulted Hispanics and POWs. It's just a matter of time until he insults some other group such as women, gays, blacks, Jews, Asians, Catholics, or bald people. He'll be done before we have the Redscape games Round 4.

His poll surge came after he insulted Hispanics, though.

We should wait for the polling to see if the McCain sneer has any effect. It may not, and that could just encourage more crazy from brillo-pad head (who is already insulting bald people with that syrup).

Redscape 4 is nearly 9 months overdue. Question is whether Trump lasts until Jon Stewart's last Daily Show or not. If nothing else it is making for great comedy

rickyp wrote:ray

It's good to see the Trump campaign implode so quickly

Has it imploded? As of Fridays Fox Poll he was ahead with 18 percent support.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

If you're expecting his numbers to go down because of his comments about McCain .... maybe. Maybe not. I have a feeling he can count on a fifth to a quarter to accept the way he reasons and projects.

Speaking of polls, you must love this one and all the "love" it shows for Hillary. In fact, she loses to Bush, Walker, and Rubio in Iowa, Virginia, and Colorado.

Oh, and I asked you to substantiate the claim that Trump* wants to deport all illegal aliens. You haven't.

*Please note his unfavorables are incredible. He will not be the nominee of the GOP. He might win New Hampshire, but that remains to be seen. Then again, he might just buy it and make winning it irrelevant.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Trump has already insulted Hispanics and POWs. It's just a matter of time until he insults some other group such as women, gays, blacks, Jews, Asians, Catholics, or bald people. He'll be done before we have the Redscape games Round 4.

His poll surge came after he insulted Hispanics, though.

We should wait for the polling to see if the McCain sneer has any effect. It may not, and that could just encourage more crazy from brillo-pad head (who is already insulting bald people with that syrup).

Redscape 4 is nearly 9 months overdue. Question is whether Trump lasts until Jon Stewart's last Daily Show or not. If nothing else it is making for great comedy

Although Florida is not representative because it has 2 native sons, This does support the view that Trump is not going to be a contender.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/07/24/je ... -new-poll/

I find the left's desire to have Trump succeed (and show that Republicans are nasty and brutish) to be of concern. Why do you want to confirm your worst impressions of the other side?

It appears quite obvious to me. If Trump is the winner, the left has the best chance of victory in the General Election.

Well, I think liberals see Trump's candidacy as helping Hillary...but I could do without it. The Republican nominating process is subject to hijack by publicity hounds who are not serious candidates but get early traction by saying things the right-wing base wants to hear. Not sure what the Republican Party can do about that.

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think liberals see Trump's candidacy as helping Hillary...but I could do without it. The Republican nominating process is subject to hijack by publicity hounds who are not serious candidates but get early traction by saying things the right-wing base wants to hear. Not sure what the Republican Party can do about that.

Trump has so many Democratic bread crumbs. Historically (meaning more than two years ago), Trump has been considerably more Democratic than Republican. He was pro-choice, pro-Hillary, pro-nationalized health insurance, etc. He bashed Mitt Romney and praised Hillary Clinton.

If he wins NH, the GOP will turn its guns on him and start showing what he has actually stood for. At that point, either the party will cease to exist or he will cease to be a figure in the race.

Now, if I may, let's look at Hillary for a moment. Via the NYT:

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

These are only allegations, but they show she may not be as pure as the driven snow--which is what she has proclaimed.

Then again, given the way the DOJ operates these days, they'll probably investigate the IG's.

This is MSNBC's Chuck Todd, a liberal analyst, followed by a conservative analysis:

No, I think they blew it when they didn’t turn over the server immediately. I mean, I think this one of those things that they could have, they could have — instead of saying, ‘Well, the State Department, it’s up to the State Department to release the e-mails’ and all that, I think that they lost any high ground they could have had by being pro-active in, ‘Okay, here’s the server, Congress you can have it, take a look,’ giving off the perception ‘nothing to hide here,’ instead of sort of, while technically following the law and this and technically doing what they’re supposed to be — giving it to the State and let State do this.

They could have been more out front on this, particularly with that server. I don’t know if there’s anything they could do now to get out in front of it. I think now they’ve just got to hope nothing is found.

Todd’s correct … as far as he goes. Let’s play this out along a couple of lines of assumption. First, we’ll assume that the e-mail server issue is entirely innocent. We’d have to believe that the Clintons — one of the most politically astute teams in modern American history — fumbled such an easy call by opting for stonewalling over transparency when transparency would have acquitted Hillary. After 23 years in Washington DC and more than a decade prior to that in Arkansas politics at the highest levels, does anyone believe that the Clintons would have made that kind of mistake — especially with the presidency on the line?

That leaves us with the obvious conclusion that Hillary and her team had good reason not to provide that kind of transparency. We can assume that transparency would have done her even more political damage than their decision not to turn over the server — or disclose the fact of its existence until it was discovered independently. In that case, Hillary didn’t blow it by keeping the server secret — and the bet was always that nothing would be found. That’s why Hillary and her team wiped the server clean and still won’t turn it over.

She is playing with fire and hoping not to get burned.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think liberals see Trump's candidacy as helping Hillary...but I could do without it. The Republican nominating process is subject to hijack by publicity hounds who are not serious candidates but get early traction by saying things the right-wing base wants to hear. Not sure what the Republican Party can do about that.

Trump has so many Democratic bread crumbs. Historically (meaning more than two years ago), Trump has been considerably more Democratic than Republican. He was pro-choice, pro-Hillary, pro-nationalized health insurance, etc. He bashed Mitt Romney and praised Hillary Clinton.

If he wins NH, the GOP will turn its guns on him and start showing what he has actually stood for. At that point, either the party will cease to exist or he will cease to be a figure in the race.

The proof is in which party fears his 3rd party candidacy which is a possibility. It seems that Republicans are way more afraid than Democrats of that possibility. At issue is that more Republicans prefer him than Democrats. (But not as many as the left thinks.)

Trump is by temperament, if not by policy, much more comfortable in the Republican camp. The brusque, spare no feelings, take no prisoners schtick will not go over well with women who tend to like empathetic candidates and who are the critical advantage for Democrats in presidential races.

freeman3 wrote:Trump is by temperament, if not by policy, much more comfortable in the Republican camp. The brusque, spare no feelings, take no prisoners schtick will not go over well with women who tend to like empathetic candidates and who are the critical advantage for Democrats in presidential races.

No, he's the white Obama with a twist of Hillary.

Ray Jay wrote:The proof is in which party fears his 3rd party candidacy which is a possibility. It seems that Republicans are way more afraid than Democrats of that possibility. At issue is that more Republicans prefer him than Democrats. (But not as many as the left thinks.)

That is based on what he has said. However, when his record is made plain, he will be shown to be a Democrat claiming to be a Republican.

Doctor Fate wrote:She is playing with fire and hoping not to get burned.

I hate it when the people who make or enforce our laws think that they don't have to follow them. "Rules for thee, but not for me!" I know many people don't care about this stuff. They think it's OK that cops don't enforce laws on other cops, or that politician wield influence like a club, that's it's all part of the game. But, to me, that's a terrible attitude. There are no trivial infractions to this principle.

Hillary Clinton knew the rules, yet she decided she didn't want to follow them: thinking somehow that the rules somehow didn't apply to her. People like that cannot, and should not, be in government. If you're a law-maker, you've got to respect the law, the rules that you make and force on to other people, you've got to follow them yourself.

The cloud she is under right now should be very serious. How can we say with a straight-face that the secretary of state didn't handle classified documents? It seems so absurd. The whole thing might go away because of who she is, but if it does, then what kind of system do we have, really?

geojanes

I hate it when the people who make or enforce our laws think that they don't have to follow them.

Did she break a law?

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office

.

Regarding requests for information.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Clinton carried on a practice that Powell started. (Private email server)
I think the practical aspects of doing so may have made sense. But for anyone who has several corporate email addresses (I have three) keeping them sorted is a problem.
And I'm sure Clinton gets and sends more emails than most people.

This is not much of an issue. And its very doubtful Clinton set out to circumvent security and certainly not circumvent any law since none existed. . What she obviously set out to do was try to protect what little privacy she has....
She probably should have employed more expert technical experts to advise her.... but then today's so called expert is just the next guy getting hacked.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... nd-the-law

ray

At issue is that more Republicans prefer him than Democrats. (But not as many as the left thinks.)

Fate

That is based on what he has said. However, when his record is made plain, he will be shown to be a Democrat claiming to be a Republican

They aren't supporting Trump today because of something he said or did a dozen years ago. And they won't change their support if they learn of his past positions. They want to believe he's their guy today, and that he reflects their aspirations today. His past positions won't influence their current "feelings" about him. Their support for him is mostly emotional, especially since he's not said anything of substance in the way of policy in his campaign. And he's unlikely to start producing substantive policies any time soon.

Ray

At issue is that more Republicans prefer him than Democrats. (But not as many as the left thinks.)

How many would he have to attract?
If he got 10 percent of the vote, could we not reasonably assume that 9 points of that would be drawn from voters who would have voted for the republican? And maybe 1 point from Clinton? I think its more like all 10 would be republicans self described as VERY conservative.

And isn't that enough to make Clinton (if she is the eventual Democratic Candidate) a land slide winner?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

National polling seems to indicate that all of the Republicans will have to grow their appeal to catch Hillary. If they come out and decry Trump they are all afraid of turning off the TP types who support the demagogue Trump. Because they first have to get the nomination and that group of extreme conservative nativists is key to winning the primaries.
Walker is as much a demagogue as Trump. Cruz too. Growing the party whilst demonizing minorities is a losing strategy. All Trump has done is accelerate the process.