birdog1960

he'd never say it despite what the extreme right propaganda machine implies. over 7 years and never an utterance remotely related. but trump, well you know…and he's gaining support. we were at a diner this am after church with a republican couple. and they were stunned and saddened by the response of so much of the populace to trump. i guess we spoke too loudly as several tables looked daggers at us. scary times indeed.

i call it disingenuous.

ridiculous is not an argument technique.

and you think trump will help the working class? the only thing that will help unskilled, uneducated workers from now on is a higher minimum wage. because that's what they are going to be making. that''s inevitable if pure capitalism decides wages. trump aint gonna change that nor is he going to fight for a livable minimum wage. as i said earlier, the best hope for the working class is bernie but they unable to see that, at least on the right. i don't know a single dem that would support a candidate that advanced the idea of closing the borders to a particular religious group. not one. you may well be correct. guess who wins in that scenario?

tyrod is just fine. coaching, special teams, the o line, a way overrated, loudmouth #1 receiver and mcgetrunover all suck. it's too much to overcome.

not at all. best case for trump in general election imo: 60% repub, 25% dem vote 50% independent for popular vote. that's about 42% of the vote. not nearly enough. in the electoral vote all obama blue states go dem, at least half purple states go dem.

you've got it all wrong. most liberals, i believe, would like to see trump win the repub nomination. mostly because he would be one of the easiest to beat and would be a very long shot to actually win. also because of the negative effect on the party. what disturbs me and i suspect other like thinkers is that there are so many americans willing to support him. i think we always knew it (especially after having spent time here at ppp) but to have it confirmed is a bit unnerving.

will be in the uk. even the torries in the family are more in line with my views than those of the right wingers here. liberal and conservative are relative terms. i doubt anyone at any table i'm seated at will be a trump supporter, for example.

still don't believe it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940. "even paranoids have enemies". i think this is just republican rationalization for their eventual realization that it's not advantageous to have a party that includes so many crazies. another nice bbc piece distilling trump's policy statements thus far: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34903577

no idea…not an entirely unique situation but a rather extreme example.

Yep. Last name lynch and trump "keep out Muslims" are exactly equivalent. Moron

well, no. it's a paraphrase of a well known speech from a german minister shortly after WW2. it's widely quoted but obviously not round here. never forget indeed.

some folks obviously feel trump is a racist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/24/the-ad-in-which-john-kasichs-campaign-seems-to-compare-donald-trump-to-hitler/ The spot features retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe speaking at an event in Ohio, the same day Trump held a rally in Columbus. Moe, who the Kasich campaign identifies as a former Vietnam POW, paraphrases a quote from Protestant pastor Martin Niemöller, taken from his lectures after World War II. "You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you're not one," says Moe, to an ominous soundtrack. "And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's okay to rough up black protesters, because you're not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there's someone left to help you."

ryan effectively addressed the qb position within a few months of joining the bills. whaley has yet to effectively address it.

you can write it on an entire page. bullying isn't an effective argument style (to smart people) even if you are imitating trump. so, i'll break down the argument for you: 1.the poll was an opt in internet study 2. the poll aimed to measure opinion on trump 3. opt in internet studies can be as effective as traditional polling therefore this poll can be effective in measuring opinion on trump your conclusion was that the poll was unable to measure opinion on trump. of course, you were unaware of premise #3. now you are aware and still reject the logical conclusion.

wapo has done a nice job analyzing trumps strategy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-chaos-its-trumps-campaign-strategy/2015/12/09/9005a5be-9d68-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html seems about right to me. just sad that it sells to so many rubes. he truly is the lowest common denominator.

and you have absolutely no insight that appropriate adjustments were not. the p[iece and pending paper i cited are a couple years old. odds are better than even the folks doing the poll, unlike you, read the paper. bloomberg is a reputable source known for reliable data. it's more likely than not that they made the necessary adjustments. just because you arrogantly and without foundation assume that they did not, does not make it less likely. i'm thinking you and par are not well acquainted. it's clear that you and sense are not.

it's all about the fact that opt in polls can be as valuable as traditional pools. therefore, calling someone an idiot for citing such a poll is moronic, juvenile, brutish, ignorant and generally in bad taste. kinda like trump. no wonder your views are seriously considered by some here.

read this conclusion that is under review for publication in a scholarly journal concentrating on statistics: With proper statistical adjustment, non-representative polls can be used to generate accurate election forecasts, and often faster and at less expense than traditional survey methods. We demonstrate this approach by creating forecasts from a novel and highly non-representative survey dataset: a series of daily voter intention polls for the 2012 presidential election conducted on the Xbox gaming platform. After adjusting the Xbox responses via multilevel regression and poststratification, we obtain estimates in line with forecasts from leading poll analysts, which were based on aggregating hundreds of traditional polls conducted during the election cycle. We conclude by arguing that non-representative polling shows promise not only for election forecasting, but also for measuring public opinion on a broad range of social, economic and cultural issues. read it aloud. 4 times. presumably you missed it since it's in the middle of the linked article. then ignore it because scholarly work has no bearing on your ridiculous opinions.

pretty broad brush stroke you made there. not everyone including this columbia statistician agrees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/09/tracking-public-opinion-with-biased-polls/. but then again, he might just be an idiot.

no doubt. but the way forward isn't to elect a loose cannon, reactionary, thoughtless, oafish, crass narcissist. these handlers are skilled. hell, they sold many of these same people the iraq war. they'll sell them one of the controllable, more centrist candidates. and they'll use trump's more desirable traits. i must admit to being more confident in that than the senior nrsc staffer. the great irony here to me is that bernie sanders is he most anti establishment candidate in the race. the most plain spoken. the most consistent and straight forward. has an undeniably impressive track record of swimming upstream despite the political risks. and almost no one that is behind trump for these very same reasons would ever consider voting for him. the further irony is that many of the same voters would likely fare better financially under bernie's programs.

that's interesting since it was first published by the washington post on dec 2… it wasn't even written by baker til sept 22. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/private-memo-lays-out-how-the-gop-would-deal-with-trump-as-its-nominee/2015/12/02/78514cba-9909-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html The document was shared with The Washington Post by a high-ranking Republican who did so on the condition of anonymity because it was not intended to be made public. Its authenticity was confirmed by a second top GOP official.

a memo from ward baker national repug senatorial committee senior staff detailing instructions to repug candidates should trump win the primary. must reading: http://www.scribd.com/doc/291989296/NRSC-Trump-Memo

reputable source. fair questions. cross section of electorate polled. margin of error +/- 4%. even if you double that to 8% ,thats still a significant majority of repugs supporting trump after his muslim statement . i'd say the poll must be considered meaningful. it at least documents a trend. and to la's question; yes, i think it's reasonable to conclude that a majority of republicans in this poll do not denounce trump's statement on muslims. not a surprise. pretty scary stuff. and then there's the 18% of dems that favor trumps position. who are these people? where are those demographics? i suspect it's an even more homogeneous group than the repugs with the same opinions. certainly a much smaller group. maybe we need a smaller tent. http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purple-Strategies-Trump-poll

like I said, wacko theory. but if i'm wrong on that, here's even more evidence that repugs are the party of sheeple