Who Do You Think Will Win The Democrat And Republican Nominations?

[RadGuy 1,614]

It looks like Clinton and Cruz won.

 

Also, O'Malley dropped out. Republicans have like five or six times more candidates then the Democrats now, lmfao. But I think at least two will drop out... Gilmore and Santorum.

[Phantom 2,533]

It looks like Clinton and Cruz won.

 

Also, O'Malley dropped out. Republicans have like five or six times more candidates then the Democrats now, lmfao. But I think at least two will drop out... Gilmore and Santorum.

Gilmore wasn't included for the Iowa caucus. Sanders has done well with the popular vote. I think he'll do better in New Hampshire.

[deadsox 894]

 

 

 

 

 

I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but...

 

DEMOCRATIC

Clinton: 60%

Sanders: 40%

 

REPUBLICAN

Trump: 50%

Rubio: 20%

Cruz: 20%

Carson: 3%

Kasich: 3%

Christie: 2%

Bush: 2%

 

You forgot Bush.

 

Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance.

 

I think Bush might do better than expected. He does have name recognition, and he is part of a political dynasty which appeals to arch-conservatives. Even if he doesn't.

 

If he does better that the other under 20%er, he might emerge as the sensible candidate. Then again, it seems that both parties would elect a sensible candidate only begrudgingly.

 

In New Hampshire, we're getting absolutely bombarded by mailings that are not from any specific candidate but are attacks on many Republicans. I don't know for sure but I suspect that Bush (who has a lot of money behind him) is responsible. We are also bombarded by phone calls but I don't answer those.

 

 

So, are you actually gonna turn out and vote when the time comes?

 

Absolutely. I always vote even if I don't like the choices.

[Phantom 2,533]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but...

 

DEMOCRATIC

Clinton: 60%

Sanders: 40%

 

REPUBLICAN

Trump: 50%

Rubio: 20%

Cruz: 20%

Carson: 3%

Kasich: 3%

Christie: 2%

Bush: 2%

 

You forgot Bush.

 

Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance.

 

I think Bush might do better than expected. He does have name recognition, and he is part of a political dynasty which appeals to arch-conservatives. Even if he doesn't.

 

If he does better that the other under 20%er, he might emerge as the sensible candidate. Then again, it seems that both parties would elect a sensible candidate only begrudgingly.

 

In New Hampshire, we're getting absolutely bombarded by mailings that are not from any specific candidate but are attacks on many Republicans. I don't know for sure but I suspect that Bush (who has a lot of money behind him) is responsible. We are also bombarded by phone calls but I don't answer those.

 

 

So, are you actually gonna turn out and vote when the time comes?

 

Absolutely. I always vote even if I don't like the choices.

 

 

You also forgot Huckabee, but he's dropped out of the race now so it doesn't really matter

[Shroud 19]

Well, Ted Cruz has surprised some people although I think he is much too extreme to win the general US election come November. I think Trump will still be a factor - how much, we'll see.

 

Hillary needs to be careful at the same time; Sanders will win it, and a few other states as well. If she angers his supporters badly enough, they probably simply won't vote for her. There's a chance Sanders will run an Indi campaign also I think, & I fully expect Trump to as well regardless of what he has said in the past.

 

One Republican has dropped out after Iowa, and Democrat Martin o'Malley threw the towel in wisely. One or two more candidates may withdraw before New Hampshire votes on the 9th. A number of the lower tier Republicans will pull out after New Hampshire I fully expect, so it all remains quite interesting.

 

I do suggest those here who think Trump is the fanatic, though, to heck into Cruz more closely, then decide who would be the worst to possibly end up President.

[Phantom 2,533]

Donald Trump getting a little flack for his "No one remembers who came in second" tweet from 2013 after he came second in the Iowa caucus.

It seems like many people remember him using the quote by Walter Hagan.

[Bibliogryphon 9,573]

I have been suspicious of Cruz for a while and thought that Trump was maybe his fall guy. Mouthed off to the press and appeared obnoxious so that Cruz looked less extreme but politically they seem to inhabit the same ground.

 

Nigel Farage and David Cameron pulled a similar trick in the UK last May.

[time 8,599]

I don't want to appear all Sir Creepy, but wtf has any of this got to do with Nancy?

[RadGuy 1,614]

I don't want to appear all Sir Creepy, but wtf has any of this got to do with Nancy?

You're right.

 

We have like 5 political threads in extra-curricular, they should use those.

[Phantom 2,533]

 

I don't want to appear all Sir Creepy, but wtf has any of this got to do with Nancy?

You're right.

 

We have like 5 political threads in extra-curricular, they should use those.

 

And this one is a good few years old.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Magere Hein
Dozen or so posts moved from topic "Nancy Reagan"

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

If "liberals" are so eager to face the so-called disastrous candidate Donald Trump why are they so derangedly carping "LOSER LOSER" over his close second finish in an attempt to do him down?

 

Gosh, I almost think they don't want a populist like him to take on their horrendous shrew at all!

[msc 18,439]

Recent history suggests Iowa Republicans love super religious nutters with no traction in the rest of the country (Santorum, Huckabee) so Cruz winning Iowa and Trump being second is possibly great news for Donald Trump.

[Phantom 2,533]

Recent history suggests Iowa Republicans love super religious nutters with no traction in the rest of the country (Santorum, Huckabee) so Cruz winning Iowa and Trump being second is possibly great news for Donald Trump.

 

And it wasn't a total loss for Trump, He still got 7 delegates behind Cruz's 8.

[CarolAnn 926]

Cruz is my senator, but you have to thank my brother for that. I would vote for a wooden plank first.

 

Super Tuesday may be Bernie's campaign death knell. Unfortunately, the Republicans will fight it out to the convention.

 

Trump needs to stop using "fair" as a barometer. Life ain't fair, and politics less so.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Trump needs to stop using "fair" as a barometer. Life ain't fair, and politics less so.

You know that, I know that, Trump knows that, but do his voters?

[charon 4,943]

 

Trump needs to stop using "fair" as a barometer. Life ain't fair, and politics less so.

You know that, I know that, Trump knows that, but do his voters?

They might, but can they help themselves ?

 

Saw this a few weeks back, still valid.

 

 

 

 

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

 

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)

For starters, Trump literally wrote the book on negotiating, called The Art of the Deal. So we know he is familiar with the finer points of persuasion. For our purposes today, persuasion, hypnosis, and negotiating all share a common set of tools, so I will conflate them.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that.

 

But where is the smoking gun of his persuasion? Where is his technique laid out for us to see.

Everywhere.

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, theres a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us think past the sale. The sale he wants to make is Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making. The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you think past the sale and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

 

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an anchor in your mind. Thats another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I dont remember the smaller estimates of Trumps wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trumps anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trumps value proposition is that he will Make America Great. In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of Americas reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not. (Obviously we need good execution as well, not just brand illusion. But a strong brand gives you better leverage for getting what you want. It is all connected.)

And what did you think of Trumps famous Rosie ODonnell quip at the first debate when asked about his comments on women? The interviewers questions were intended to paint Trump forever as a sexist pig. But Trump quickly and cleverly set the anchor as Rosie ODonnell, a name he could be sure was not popular with his core Republican crowd. And then he casually admitted, without hesitation, that he was sure he had said other bad things about other people as well.

Now do you see how the anchor works? If the idea of Trump insults women had been allowed to pair in your mind with the nice women you know and love, you would hate Trump. That jerk is insulting my sister, my mother, and my wife! But Trump never let that happen. At the first moment (and you have to admit he thinks fast) he inserted the Rosie ODonnell anchor and owned the conversation from that point on. Now hes not the sexist who sometimes insults women; hes the straight-talker who wont hesitate to insult someone who has it coming (in his view).

But it gets better. You probably cringed when Trump kept saying his appearance gave FOX its biggest audience rating. That seemed totally off point for a politician, right? But see what happened.

Apparently FOX chief Roger Ailes called Trump and made peace. And by that I mean Trump owns FOX for the rest of the campaign because his willingness to appear on their network will determine their financial fate. BAM, Trump owns FOX and paid no money for it. See how this works? Thats what a strong brand gives you.

You probably also cringed when you heard Trump say Mexico was sending us their rapists and bad people. But if you have read this far, you now recognize that intentional exaggeration as an anchor, and a standard method of persuasion.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbors pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it. Telling a neighbor to build his own wall for your benefit is not crazy talk. And I actually think Trump could pull it off.

On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a whiner. But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. Thats a psychological trick I call taking the high ground and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether whiner is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. Thats some clown genius for you.

Update: When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature. And they sure dont want to see a Clinton presidency.

Update 2: And what about Trumps habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.

If youre keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I dont think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.

As far as I can tell, Trumps crazy talk is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an anchor in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, Im going to predict he will be our next president. I think he will move to the center on social issues (already happening) and win against Clinton in a tight election.

I also saw some Internet chatter about the idea of picking Mark Cuban as Vice Presidential running mate. If that happens, Republicans win. And I think they like to win. There is no way Trump picks some desiccated Governor from an important state as his running mate. I think Cuban is a realistic possibility.

I dont mean this post to look like support for a Trump presidency. Im more interested in his methods. Im not smart enough to know who would do the best job as president. There are a lot of capable people in the game.

Update: Now that you have read my explanation of Trumps three-dimensional chess, read this article and chuckle at how he is operating on an entirely different level from the TV host, Chuck Todd, and even the author of the article Im linking to. It is literally hilarious.

 

 

[Shroud 19]

Well, a 3rd candidate has been eliminated in the US Presidential election, and the 2nd Republican, Senator Rand Paul dropped out today. I think that leaves them with yet 8 or 9, but after New Hampshire next week, some more will fall out. Probably Governor Chris Christie will be one of them, which is too bad in ways. he seems to have more emapthy for people than most conservatives.

 

Just hope Ted Crux doesn't wind up elected somehow; nobody has seen fascism in the US until/unless HE gets into office, for the guy would make Dick Cheney and Co. look like avid progressives.

 

Don't Count Senator Sanders out yet either. he'll win some states, and make Hillary have to earn the nomination, I think.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Magere Hein
Post moved from topic "Nancy Reagan"

[Phantom 2,533]

Trump accusing Cruz of fraud over the Iowa caucus.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35486983

 

I'm not sure why he's so bothered, he got 1 delegate less than Cruz, and the rest of the country generally votes a lot differently than Iowans.

[charon 4,943]

Trump accusing Cruz of fraud over the Iowa caucus.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35486983

 

I'm not sure why he's so bothered, he got 1 delegate less than

 

Cruz, and the rest of the country generally votes a lot differently than Iowans.

See my last post..

 

Doesn't matter what Cruz did, the anchor is 'Cruz + fraud'.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Trump accusing Cruz of fraud over the Iowa caucus.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35486983

 

I'm not sure why he's so bothered, he got 1 delegate less than Cruz, and the rest of the country generally votes a lot differently than Iowans.

Is Trump from Florida?

[Phantom 2,533]

 

Trump accusing Cruz of fraud over the Iowa caucus.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35486983

 

I'm not sure why he's so bothered, he got 1 delegate less than

 

Cruz, and the rest of the country generally votes a lot differently than Iowans.

See my last post..

 

Doesn't matter what Cruz did, the anchor is 'Cruz + fraud'.

 

 

I read your post this morning, I've seen something similar.

The Cruz + fraud bit is similar to the Cruz + Canada that Trump currently has got his teeth in to and won't let go.

You've probably notice when he does his rallies that once he focuses on those points, the crowd loses attention to be drawn in to the new thing that Trump is bleeting on about. Meanwhile everyone else is wonering if he'll address the issue he started talking about or even offer a solution to a particular issue.

[Phantom 2,533]

 

Trump accusing Cruz of fraud over the Iowa caucus.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35486983

 

I'm not sure why he's so bothered, he got 1 delegate less than Cruz, and the rest of the country generally votes a lot differently than Iowans.

Is Trump from Florida?

 

 

He's from New York. Marco Rubio is from Florida.

[Phantom 2,533]

This is one of the creepiest photos of Trump posing with his daughter Ivanka back in 1996

 

[Phantom 2,533]

John Kasich plans to reunite Pink Floyd if elected

[En Passant 3,741]

Good luck with that, resurrecting Rick Wright might be considered the easy part....