2016 Election
They're too paralyzed with fear over Global Warming and the worrying about the number of blacks nominated for an Oscar.
....on the same day her son was arrested for drunkenly assaulting his girlfriend and waving an assault rifle around like a moron. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/track-palin-sarah-palin-adult-son-arrested-alaska-article-1.2502319
Never forget: the Palins are the pure white trash.
Quote: ams288Sarah Palin endorsed Trump! Yee-haw!
Yeah, I am not sure a Sarah Palin endorsement means all that much. But if it carries any weight anywhere, it is probably a place like Iowa. The Iowa electorate is just not Trump territory. If Folksy Palin helps a few of those folks relate to Donald Trump it could help a bit. It's also a little bit of a slap in the face of Ted Cruz, as he seemed like a better fit.
An even bigger slap in the face for Cruz today was the Iowa republican governor, 6 term, longest serving governor in the history of the US, coming out against Cruz today. He didn't endorse Trump, but did state that Iowans need to not support Cruz because of his position on ethanol, which is a big deal in Iowa. I think this hurts Cruz much more than a Sarah Palin.
Iowa is Cruz's to lose. If Trump finishes second, no big deal. Iowa is not Trumpland and has a weird voting process. BUT, if Trump wins Iowa, even by a very slim margin and then wins big in New Hampshire as expected, South Carolina becomes last chance to stop him or he rolls to an easy nomination process.
Several online betting sites have adjusted odds in the last 24 hours, making Trump the favorite at 5-4, just slightly higher than even money to win the republican nomination. Rubio is second at 2-1, 9/4 range and Cruz is third 7/2 or 4-1 range.
Gov of Iowa denounced Cruz
Bob Dole has as well.
However:
National Review has denounced Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
Quote: rxwineVarious entities are taking their best shots and taking no prisoners.
Gov of Iowa denounced Cruz
Bob Dole has as well.
However:
National Review has denounced Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
Just another talking point for Trump to use to show how the "establishment" is against him and the common voter fed up with how things are. While all the writers are entitled to their opinion, I don't think it helps their cause at all. You certainly didn't see Rush in there with Beck, Erickson and all the others.
I've said it for a while now, I don't see how he could lose the nomination at this point. He is ahead in every state by YUGE margins.
As a Democrat (and Hillary supporter), I feel like if Trump is the Republican nominee, I would feel comfortable with Bernie as our nominee. I was always skeptical of Bernie's chances in a general election. But if Republicans select poison pill Trump, all bets are off.
Quote: ams288Trump seems to be gaining momentum in Iowa. The caucuses are just about a week away.
I've said it for a while now, I don't see how he could lose the nomination at this point. He is ahead in every state by YUGE margins.
As a Democrat (and Hillary supporter), I feel like if Trump is the Republican nominee, I would feel comfortable with Bernie as our nominee. I was always skeptical of Bernie's chances in a general election. But if Republicans select poison pill Trump, all bets are off.
From what I've seen, Bernie polls better against Trump than Hillary. Little doubt in my mind that Bernie would do better against Trump specifically. Though he has almost no chance of being nominated.
Many populist oriented dems would cross over to Trump if it was him and Hill. (I know some and the polls say so).
Many anti-war/corruption/mass incarceration etc. types will not vote Trump, but will refuse to vote Hillary. Especially after smear campaigns labeling Bernie and supporters as racist and sexist. (Know many, and am one).
Trump has a YUGE rhetorical advantage against establishment types and Hillary is as establishment as they come . Nobody in the history of this, or probably any country, has taken more campaign money and personal pay outs from big business than The Clintons. Trump will BBQ Hillary on integrity and public interest. He can't do it to Sanders, who also benefits from a similar brash, candid style.
Hillary would still edge Trump out though. Pretty hard to win these days when you alienate all of the non-white vote.
Quote: Rigondeaux
Hillary would still edge Trump out though. Pretty hard to win these days when you alienate all of the non-white vote.
I agree, the autopsy on the Rommney campaign, need to attract more Hispanic voters.
Trump will actually get less Hispanic votes then Rommney.
I hear a lot of chatter regarding "real republicans"
What is a real republican?
Does a real republican support somebody like Trump that will lose the election and probably the senate?
or
Does a real republican support a more establishment candidate that has a chance of winning an election and maybe keep the senate?
Quote: terapinedI hear a lot of chatter regarding "real republicans"
What is a real republican?
Does a real republican support somebody like Trump that will lose the election and probably the senate?
or
Does a real republican support a more establishment candidate that has a chance of winning an election and maybe keep the senate?
I have one uncle, who for as long as I can remember has been about as far right as one can be. I can remember him ranting about politics even when I was a little kid and didn't even know what he was talking about. I would say he's a "real republican."
At Christmas this year, he said if Trump is the nominee, he is staying home and not voting.
I was in shock. To imagine him not voting is almost incomprehensible to me.
I guess Trump has that effect on people. He definitely has his followers, but they don't exactly line up with the normal conservative Republican voters.
What a wimp.
Quote: ams288Trump is boycotting the next debate on FOX because Megyn Kelly is moderating.
What a wimp.
He's the alternative candidate punching bag. Declining the debate is pretty smart this close to Iowa caucus time.
Quote: ActuarialHe's the alternative candidate punching bag. Declining the debate is pretty smart this close to Iowa caucus time.
I think this move will hurt him more than help him.
Makes him seem like he can't handle the heat.
Quote: ams288Trump is boycotting the next debate on FOX because Megyn Kelly is moderating.
I predict he will change his mind and show up.
Quote: WizardI predict he will change his mind and show up.
Bet on it! I agree with you...
Quote: steeldcoWell done Karnac..............
May your next Vegas vacation be spent at Arizona Charlie's.
Quote: WizardI predict he will change his mind and show up.
He probably will.
Trump is part real life troll. He really is.
That's at least 50% of his modus operandi.
Even CNN backed down to Trump when he made demands about the length of the debate.
Though without Trump at the debate I don't know who they will spend 90% of the time talking about.
Whether this will work in his favor or not, I don't know. I can see it going either way (to his supporters it will make him look like a Maverick who does not care about the system. To non-Trump supporters it will make him look like a pouty child, though many already have this impression). I have no clue if this will end up working for or against him.
But, it will be most interesting to see if Trump ends up backing down for once and participating anyway. If this happens I bet he will be a total jerk any time Kelly asks him a question, probably totally ignore her questions and just start ranting about anything else to appear that he is in control of the debate.
But, I don't really think Trumps decision has anything to do with Kelly, that's just the excuse. The fact is that a frontrunner is the one most vulnerable in any debate. He/she has the most to lose. And debates are not Trumps strength despite the fact that Cruz made a mistake and allowed a huge opening for Trump to play the sympathy card on behalf of NYC in regards to 911. Trump jumped on that opening and crushed Cruz in that moment. But other than that, Trumps debate performances are not very strong and both his closest challengers, Cruz and Rubio are excellent debater, so really there is no upside for Trump as the frontrunner. Best case scenario, he holds his own. Worst case scenario, he makes a mistake or looks lost on a subject that costs him.
By skipping the debate and blaming Fox and Megan Kelly, Trump loses nothing. His support is solid and skipping the debate won't lose supporters. So, as front runner, it is actually a smart move in my opinion, especially if he can pull it off in that he is blaming Fox for being unfair rather than doing it because there is no upside.
But in the absence of those scenarios, meaning Trump wins Iowa, or finishes a close second, He goes on to win New Hampshire big, then goes to South Carolina where he currently has a 20 point lead. South Carolina will be the last chance to stop him. If he wins there, he will have shown strength in the northeast, south and Midwest and no one else will have shown anything. At that point he rolls to the nomination. At that point the republican side could be decided even before the democrats. Who would have thought that?
Quote: kewljFirst, I think Fox should have removed Megan Kelly as scheduled moderator from this debate, last Fall after the last Trump-Kelly incident.
It should be a collaboration of the news organizations and ALL the candidates, not just Trump. Pretty sure the other candidates would want Kelly there. (it may be the Republican party to decide, but still not just Trump)
I see no legitimate basis for a Trump only complaint to be obeyed.
Quote: rxwinePretty sure the other candidates would want Kelly there.
Why would the other candidates want Megan Kelly there? Again, the role (I think I spelled roll in my last post) of the moderators and the organization putting on the debate is to appear to be as neutral as possible.
This is a PRESIDENTIAL debate. It is a platform for the candidates with the focus on the candidates. With Megan Kelly as a moderator, she becomes part of that focus, part of the story and that is not the role of a moderator or journalist. She should have removed herself from consideration. But if she didn't then Fox should have.
Quote: kewljWhy would the other candidates want Megan Kelly there? Again, the role (I think I spelled roll in my last post) of the moderators and the organization putting on the debate is to appear to be as neutral as possible.
This is a PRESIDENTIAL debate. It is a platform for the candidates with the focus on the candidates. With Megan Kelly as a moderator, she becomes part of that focus, part of the story and that is not the role of a moderator or journalist. She should have removed herself from consideration. But if she didn't then Fox should have.
Why, for asking questions Trump didn't like? He can answer any way he likes or not at all. He's not under oath.
Who is the arbiter of neutral? Either way, it still isn't Trump or Trump supporters.
Quote: kewljFirst, I think Fox should have removed Megan Kelly ...
It is spelled Megyn. I find female names with extraneous y's very annoying, but it is what it is.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyn_Kelly.
Classic bully. All hat, no cattle. Yeah, that's a strong leader for America. Not.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo, Trump claims he will stand up to Vladimir Putin. He'll demand and get billions from Mexico for a wall. He'll stomp Isis' asses. But he can't face Megyn Kelly on tv. And SHE'S not the one who said all the offensive things; she just asked questions about offensive things HE said.
Classic bully. All hat, no cattle. Yeah, that's a strong leader for America. Not.
I heard a similar thing from one of our local/national radio conservatives yesterday on his Facebook page. That particular commentator (not Glen Beck) is pushing Ted Cruz.
I do think Trump is a bully. I have said many times here that I am not sure how a bully gets things done in Washington. President Obama has tried to bully things into existence in negotiations by basically saying that "this is my position, let's agree on it"; that is not a negotiation. It hasn't worked. Not much has gotten done and it is as much do to the President's inability to negotiate as it is to the Republican's bullheadedness. My point is that bullying is not the greatest tactic for negotiating with a large group. You have to build some consensus to get most things done.
At this point, our choices seem to be "bad and worse"...on both sides. The Dems have Hillary and Bernie; one isn't as teflon as she'd like to be and the other is a socialist. The Republicans have all these people but the clear leader seems to be unable to make it through the day without insulting someone. He doesn't act, well, Presidential. He doesn't explain the "how" in any real way. He is a hero to a whole bunch of people and I will concede that I will vote for him over the two Dems if it comes down to it, but he won't get my primary vote.
During the 1976 election (while in high school) my opinion on the election between Ford and Carter came down to something this may come down to for me...neither seemed worthy of the position.
The supposedly fair balanced new network just used the terror label on Trump
"We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees."
What
Megyn Kelly or Kelly Megyn, whatever her name is has been the subject of terrorizations?
Is foxnews serious? Fair and balanced? They are pissed and letting the Donald know it.
"terrorizations" LOL
Burns Oregon has been subjected to terrorizations by white conservative gun nuts, not this Kelly chick.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-trump-terrorization_us_56a83ec8e4b0947efb65f3e9?z2w97ldi
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/27/full-statement-on-trump-declining-to-participate-in-fox-newsgoogle-debate.html
"I mean he’s brilliant, and he can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials." (She also said something like "wow, what a great idea!)"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-appointing-president-obama-supreme-court/story?id=36534796
"The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
I guess she has come to realize that he really was a professor and he really is brilliant.
Quote: RonCHIllary's campaign attacked President Obama's in 2008 based on the whole "law professor" thing...now she has been asked if he is someone she would consider for the Supreme Court:
"I mean he’s brilliant, and he can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials." (She also said something like "wow, what a great idea!)"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-appointing-president-obama-supreme-court/story?id=36534796
"The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
I guess she has come to realize that he really was a professor and he really is brilliant.
I think Obama would be a wonderful pick for the Supreme Court
Heaven on Earth for a lib, President Hillary Clinton and Justice of the Supreme Court Barack Obama.
Both titles have a nice ring.
As to the fox debate.
Megyn Kelly or Kelly Megyn, whatever her name is should resign from the debate
Her 1st question to Trump in the last debate was not a journalist question but a National Enquirer question
This person may be the next leader of the free world and this Kelly chick thought the most important question to ask was a twitter war he had with Rosie.
Kelly is not a journalist, she's a National Enquirer wanna be
Its the smart move for Trump not to debate. He has the lead, He doesn't need the debate.
Its always candidates trailing that need debates, not front runners
I see Rick (I wear glasses now to make me look smart) Perry endorsed Cruz
of course. He cant endorse Trump because Trump had the funniest line about Rick Perry
"Rick Perry should be required to take an IQ test before being allowed to run for President"
Quote: steeldcoHas Kasich moved up enough to have a bit of a shot at winning a nomination? To me, he seems the most level headed and exhibits the most common sense. Rubio would probably have to be my choice if Kasich stands no chance.
The establishment guys have all put all their efforts into New Hampshire. I saw one poll where Kasich was second at 15% in New Hampshire. I also saw one poll where Christie was second at like 12%. But mostly the 4 establishment candidates are all 'muddled' or 'middled' between 7 and 10 percent, completely dividing the establishment vote.
I think what the establishment people are hoping against hope is that one of these 4 guys (Kasich, Rubio, Bush, Christie) emerges as a strong second place winner in New Hampshire and the establishment can unite behind that one candidate, while the other 3 dropout and fade. Problem for both Kasich and Christie is that they have put everything (literally) into New Hampshire and have like 1% support in other places. If one of those two were to be the strong establishment winner in New Hampshire, it's hard to see how they parlay that into anything in South Carolina, where they are at 1 or 2 percent, with only a week or so to change that.
Trump has 33% in New Hampshire
Cruz has 13%
The next five candidates, more establishment-type candidates (Kasich, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Fiorina) have 41.2%
If two or three of those five were gone from the race, it would instantly be a closer contest.
I think that the establishment candidates, by staying in the race, are increasing Trump's chances of winning. People expected Trump to be gone by this time but that continually was delayed by his support growing a bit and everyone staying in the contest. There should not even be a "second Tier" at this point. It will soon be too late to change the outcome; momentum alone will soon carry him to the nomination. People like to jump on the winning side!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/compare/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary_2016_2012_2008.html
Quote: RonCWith everyone--even candidates polling at <1%--staying in the race this long, it is very hard for any candidate to gain momentum against Trump.
Some of these 1% ers, even 2 and 3 percenters, HAVE to start dropping out after Iowa and New Hampshire don't they?? Guys like Santorum and Huckabee are probably hoping for a much better showing in Iowa than the polls show based on the fact that they have surprised there before. If those kind of guys can't do something in Iowa, they can't do well anywhere. Ben Carson similarly. Even polling at 6 or 7%, if he can't do really well in Iowa, which are his kind of people (he had a lead there a couple months ago), he isn't going to do well anywhere. Although, Iowa isn't exactly Rand Paul's kind of voters, his father had very strong support and a really strong ground game there and I think he is hoping for a stronger showing than the polls suggest there.
I think someone like Fiorina and even Rubio are likely to stay in the race longer than they should because they both could also be playing for vice president consideration. Some also think Kasich being from Ohio, a huge swing state, could be vice presidential consideration.
Chris Christie: 'I will throw my body in front of the Johnny Manziel train'
"The man, who somehow is a huge Dallas Cowboys fan despite growing up in New Jersey, attending college in Delaware and never living in the state of Texas, said on the radio Monday, "I will throw my body in front of the Johnny Manziel train if it heads towards Dallas.""
http://www.chron.com/sports/texans/article/Chris-Christie-I-will-throw-my-body-in-front-of-6784439.php
Quote: kewljI think someone like Fiorina and even Rubio are likely to stay in the race longer than they should because they both could also be playing for vice president consideration. Some also think Kasich being from Ohio, a huge swing state, could be vice presidential consideration.
I don't disagree; it could be that everyone wanting to be the VP candidate may be assisting Trump in becoming the candidate...
I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/692312112115380224
...aren't you really just saying that she is a bimbo and hoping no one will really notice? It is kind of like saying "with all due respect" and thinking that you can say anything that you want...
Hey, he's sucking up all the oxygen going into the debate. I heard Chris Matthews even made some comment about "‘Who Is Going to Watch a Debate Between the Two Cuban Guys?’" (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-who-is-going-to-watch-a-debate-between-the-two-cuban-guys/)
By the way, how does that statement sound to you?
Fox turning on Trump could be bigger than people think. Remember, some of these are closed primaries. The voters are registered Reps who are politically involved enough to vote in primaries. Real die hards, not the general population.
Anyway, I enjoyed this campaign ad. Ostensibly an anti-Sanders ad. But is it really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9gZ4t1v9N4
Quote: RonCHere is Christie's exit plan:
Chris Christie: 'I will throw my body in front of the Johnny Manziel train'
"The man, who somehow is a huge Dallas Cowboys fan despite growing up in New Jersey, attending college in Delaware and never living in the state of Texas, said on the radio Monday, "I will throw my body in front of the Johnny Manziel train if it heads towards Dallas.""
http://www.chron.com/sports/texans/article/Chris-Christie-I-will-throw-my-body-in-front-of-6784439.php
So what
I grew up in Maryland. Went to school in Maryland.
Our small state has 2 football teams that play in Maryland.
Colts/Ravens and Redskins
Typically, you were a fan of one team and disliked the other team
I identified with Baltimore so was a Colts/Ravens fan.
Because I hated the Redskins so much, became a Cowboys fan back when the rivalry was huge
I never lived or worked in TX yet I am a Cowboys fan
nothing weird about that (Once known as Americas team because so many of their fans did not live in TX such as Christie)
Quote: terapinedI think Obama would be a wonderful pick for the Supreme Court
Heaven on Earth for a lib, President Hillary Clinton and Justice of the Supreme Court Barack Obama.
Both titles have a nice ring.
As to the fox debate.
Megyn Kelly or Kelly Megyn, whatever her name is should resign from the debate
Her 1st question to Trump in the last debate was not a journalist question but a National Enquirer question
This person may be the next leader of the free world and this Kelly chick thought the most important question to ask was a twitter war he had with Rosie.
Kelly is not a journalist, she's a National Enquirer wanna be
Could not disagree more about this. Trump is the one who made it a throwaway about Rosie, NOT Kelly. She was talking to him about how he sees/treats/refers to women. Her question demonstrated his long-term trend and bias against women (while informing the audience, who mostly weren't familiar with him at that point and wouldn't know he was like this), with examples, and instead of answering, he bs'ed about his sexism, made it a laugh with the Rosie reference, then blamed the moderator (and perpetuated the anti-woman attitude he has). Maybe you guys didn't get it; the women listening did.
I wouldn't expect a Trump administration to place women in any positions of authority; they'd be figureheads or decoration if they were there at all. But then, I don't expect we'll have a Trump administration. And before someone claims this: no, I don't believe in quotas, but there are qualified women out there for nearly any job these days.
There are plenty of people who are Cowboys or Yankees fans around the country, but it's generally seen as a flaky thing to do. Especially if you have local teams (maybe not so much if you live in Wyoming).
You're being disloyal and a frontrunner. Instead of rooting for the local boys, you latch on to the bigger richer team from the outside. That's how fans like this are usually seen.
Quote: terapinedSo what
I grew up in Maryland. Went to school in Maryland.
Our small state has 2 football teams that play in Maryland.
Colts/Ravens and Redskins
Typically, you were a fan of one team and disliked the other team
I identified with Baltimore so was a Colts/Ravens fan.
Because I hated the Redskins so much, became a Cowboys fan back when the rivalry was huge
I never lived or worked in TX yet I am a Cowboys fan
nothing weird about that (Once known as Americas team because so many of their fans did not live in TX such as Christie)
Sorry...maybe I put too much info in about the whole quote...my point wasn't who he roots for (I could care less)...it was that he plans to get out of the race by getting run over by the Manziel train...
Bad attempt at humor on my part...
Quote: beachbumbabsCould not disagree more about this. Trump is the one who made it a throwaway about Rosie, NOT Kelly.
You damn females are soooo sensitive. Lol (kidding) ,
But, I think you are missing the point. It does not matter who is right and who is wrong or who was to blame. Megyn Kelly is now part of the story and that is NOT the role of a journalist, and especially not the role of a moderator in a debate.
I am STILL supporting Trump, as least during the primary season (although he is starting to scare and worry me). And as a Trump supporter, I don't blame Ms. Kelly for the previous incident. It was a "gottch ya" question, which I would prefer questions be about issue, but many journalist and moderators go for the "gottch ya" question. It is cheap journalism, but has sort of become accepted. So she did nothing outrageous or "wrong".
But again, it doesn't matter who is at fault. The fallout after that question, made Ms Kelly part of the story and that disqualifies her from being a moderator, IMO.
Quote: kewljYou damn females are soooo sensitive. Lol (kidding) ,
But, I think you are missing the point. It does not matter who is right and who is wrong or who was to blame. Megyn Kelly is now part of the story and that is NOT the role of a journalist, and especially not the role of a moderator in a debate.
I am STILL supporting Trump, as least during the primary season (although he is starting to scare and worry me). And as a Trump supporter, I don't blame Ms. Kelly for the previous incident. It was a "gottch ya" question, which I would prefer questions be about issue, but many journalist and moderators go for the "gottch ya" question. It is cheap journalism, but has sort of become accepted. So she did nothing outrageous or "wrong".
But again, it doesn't matter who is at fault. The fallout after that question, made Ms Kelly part of the story and that disqualifies her from being a moderator, IMO.
I don't think that does disqualify her, because Trump is the one who deflected this into being about Megyn Kelly, not just at the debate, but through his follow-up comments discrediting and dismissing her that got widely reported. He caused this problem; why should she be pushed off a podium she's earned because he refused to discuss his own past quotes in August and trolled her instead?
Quote: kewlj
But again, it doesn't matter who is at fault. The fallout after that question, made Ms Kelly part of the story and that disqualifies her from being a moderator, IMO.
I don't get how sending someone else in to make the same points makes a difference. Will Trump say the next person is nice when he hears that?
Who cares.
Anyway, Trump as President is going to be really busy. Does he know Presidents get more criticism than probably anyone? Is he going to keep up the barrage of complaints every time someone crosses him?
Quote: beachbumbabsHe caused this problem; why should she be pushed off a podium she's earned because he refused to discuss his own past quotes in August and trolled her instead?
This is not about Megyn Kelly. It is not about what she "has earned" or is entitled to, nor is it about who was right or wrong in the previous situation. The fact that there was a previous situation, disqualifies her. A legitimate and objective journalist would remove themselves from that event and if they didn't their organization should just for the appearance of objectivity.
Again, this is not about Megyn Kelly. This is a Presidential debate, a chance for the American voters to learn about the candidates. Donald Trump as much as some may not like it, is the leading candidate of one of the two major political parties. He is one of only 3 or 4 people that has a real chance to become the President, one of the most important people in the world. THAT is what this is about. Megyn Kelly is not a real participant in this process. As soon as Ms Kelly becomes part of the story, which she has...she is disqualified. It doesn't matter if it was her own fault or not.
Quote: HowManyMeanwhile, Michelle Obama will also attend the State of the Union. She'll keep herself occupied by mauling a box of DUNKAROOS during the speech.
I noticed the Speaker bang his gavel just before Michelle entered the chamber. This is about as close to an "official" acknowledgement of the First Lady at a State of the Union address that I can remember; usually, it's just some members of the President's party applauding on the floor when it happens, although I do remember one first lady's name being chanted briefly (I can't remember if it has "Barbara" or "Hillary," and as it only happened once, I have a feeling the entire House was taken to task by the Speaker over it).
Quote: kewljWhile the republicans only officially have 153 super delegates as you described, they have another 72 'at large' type delegates who are selected by party officials that are not tied in any way to the way the voters vote.
I can't find a reference to this in the Republican Party Rules, although (a) they may have been amended since the copy I have was printed, and (b) this may refer to the 75 delegates from Colorado, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania that, by their state's party rules, cannot be bound to any candidate.
Quote: kewljAfter march 15 all primaries are winner takes all, so racking up seconds and thirds does you no good. I just don't see where Rubio is poised to win anywhere at the moment and that includes his home state (at least at the moment). I just don't quite see his "path". But things can change.
Somebody forgot to tell New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and, to a lesser extent, Maryland, Indiana, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and California, all of which are after 3/15 and none of which are statewide WTA for all of the delegates, although the last five are WTA for the statewide delegates and WTA within each Congressional district for that district's 3 delegates.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Somebody forgot to tell New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and, to a lesser extent, Maryland, Indiana, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and California, all of which are after 3/15 and none of which are statewide WTA for all of the delegates, although the last five are WTA for the statewide delegates and WTA within each Congressional district for that district's 3 delegates.
Here is the source that I used.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/2016-Republican-Primaries-How-Delegates-Will-be-Awarded.htm
But I will do some further looking for more information when I have more time.
To quote a candidate's actual statements, and then ask them about them is not a gotcha question.
In fact, that is one of the only "real" questions that Trump has gotten this entire cycle.
Waaaaay too many journalists ask him softballs, or more often, just ignore and move on when he answers their relevant questions with flat out lies. No one challenges Trump's B.S. during interviews. Why? Because if they do, Trump will harass them on Twitter afterwards and he won't do their show anymore. And they need the ratings that a Trump interview brings in.
Megyn Kelly called out his B.S. and didn't back down, and we are in month 6 of Trump's hissy fit over it.
