The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

Ben Carson is apparently calling it quits

Thank goodness. Some would say so should Kasich, but he took half the delegates away from Trump in Vermont and can still be useful in Ohio. Carson wasn't going to be competitive anywhere. I'm not sure what Carson voters are like in general, but I do know someone at work who voted for Carson and can't stand Trump and would never go for him. My guess is that almost all the Carson people who were inclined to switch to Trump probably already have.

[SeattleUte]

I knew it... SU is a Drumpf fanboy!

Here is my list from worst to least worse (among remaining contenders). I'm not afraid to share it:

WORST TO LEAST WORSE

1. Sanders (socialists are the worst)

2. Cruz

3. Trump

4. Clinton

5. Rubio

[SCcoug]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politi...day/index.html

He's going to unload on Drumpf, 80K, Chris Hill etc.

[SeattleUte]

Another interesting breakdown of Trump support:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/up...crat.html?_r=0

Yeah, I know this makes you feel good. It's very predictable that you'd seize on this. Look, I read the New York Times regularly, listen to NPR. All of my news I get from demonstrably liberal outlets. They are overjoyed by this Trump phenomenon, and they helped create it! The NY Times has had multiple front page articles about Trump almost every day for over a year. The pattern was first shock and outrage but nevertheless disproportionate attention given to his crazy comments. In the past three months it's turned to (1) declaring Trump as a serious threat to win the Republican nomination and, more recently, its virtual inevitability, and (2) belittling his base. The subtext is that this is what the Republican party is--dirty, unwashed, out of work, ignorant, racist rednecks. Well, I don't think that's all what voted for him in Massachusetts (I recognize that there aren't only Harvard graduates in Mass). But as we see, for Trump, being notorious is good. The more attention you pay to him stronger he gets. And I don't trust the spin that the NY Times and NPR are giving him.

They're having a jolly good time right now. But they'd better be careful about the monster they've been complicit in creating, because last night some more balanced analysts were starting to express surprise at the breadth of Trump's base. I'm reminded of Mel Brooks's The Producers.

[Omaha 680]

Here is my list from worst to least worse (among remaining contenders). I'm not afraid to share it:

WORST TO LEAST WORSE

1. Sanders (socialists are the worst)

2. Cruz

3. Trump

4. Clinton

5. Rubio

You are very brave. An inspiration.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, I know this makes you feel good. It's very predictable that you'd seize on this. Look, I read the New York Times regularly, listen to NPR. All of my news I get from demonstrably liberal outlets. They are overjoyed by this Trump phenomenon, and they helped create it! The NY Times has had multiple front page articles about Trump almost every day for over a year. The pattern was first shock and outrage but nevertheless disproportionate attention given to his crazy comments. In the past three months it's turned to (1) declaring Trump as a serious threat to win the Republican nomination and, more recently, its virtual inevitability, and (2) belittling his base. The subtext is that this is what the Republican party is--dirty, unwashed, out of work, ignorant, racist rednecks. Well, I don't think that's all what voted for him in Massachusetts (I recognize that there aren't only Harvard graduates in Mass). But as we see, for Trump, being notorious is good. The more attention you pay to him stronger he gets. And I don't trust the spin that the NY Times and NPR are giving him.

They're having a jolly good time right now. But they'd better be careful about the monster they've been complicit in creating, because last night some more balanced analysts were starting to express surprise at the breadth of Trump's base. I'm reminded of Mel Brooks's The Producers.

For as well-read as you claim to be, it's funny that you think the liberal press is the only side saying these things about Trump. You might want to take a peek at the National Review, for example.

[snowcat]

Ben Carson is apparently calling it quits

It looks like he is taking one last shot at Trump.

[YOUTUBE]M_avnghVnoM[/YOUTUBE]

[SeattleUte]

For as well-read as you claim to be, it's funny that you think the liberal press is the only side saying these things about Trump. You might want to take a peek at the National Review, for example.

I don't claim to be balanced in what I read. I said I only read the liberal press; I don't read LDS apologetics (except the Crucible of Doubt). I don't doubt others have said what the Times is saying about Trump's base, but I was reacting to your linking a New York Times article. The fact is, a lot of Republicans don't like Trump because he's not ideologically pure enough--on social issues. In fact, NPR is now having a good time inviting "Christian" talk show hosts, politicians and clergy on the show to express horror at Trump. These people--most of whom are themselves innately haters--are expressing shock that Trump didn't quickly enough repudiate David Duke. So yes, they engage in the same spin as the New York Times. I didn't say that the New York Times is the only one. I do think the New York Times has led developing the (ironically) anti-Trump narrative, however. And unlike the conservatives, the NY Times wants him to win the nomination. And as I've noted, many of the conservatives who are belittling Trump and his base are worse than he is in all the ways that we deplore Trump--and other ways as well.

[BlueK]

Here is my list from worst to least worse (among remaining contenders). I'm not afraid to share it:

WORST TO LEAST WORSE

1. Sanders (socialists are the worst)

2. Cruz

3. Trump

4. Clinton

5. Rubio

Why would anyone be afraid on here to show their list?

Mine, from worst to best from the 2 major parties. Kasich is still in, so he's included.

1. Worst: Trump
2. Sanders
3. Hillary
4. Cruz
5. Rubio
6. Best: Kasich

[I.J. Reilly]

Yeah, I know this makes you feel good. It's very predictable that you'd seize on this. Look, I read the New York Times regularly, listen to NPR. All of my news I get from demonstrably liberal outlets. They are overjoyed by this Trump phenomenon, and they helped create it! The NY Times has had multiple front page articles about Trump almost every day for over a year. The pattern was first shock and outrage but nevertheless disproportionate attention given to his crazy comments. In the past three months it's turned to (1) declaring Trump as a serious threat to win the Republican nomination and, more recently, its virtual inevitability, and (2) belittling his base. The subtext is that this is what the Republican party is--dirty, unwashed, out of work, ignorant, racist rednecks. Well, I don't think that's all what voted for him in Massachusetts (I recognize that there aren't only Harvard graduates in Mass). But as we see, for Trump, being notorious is good. The more attention you pay to him stronger he gets. And I don't trust the spin that the NY Times and NPR are giving him.

They're having a jolly good time right now. But they'd better be careful about the monster they've been complicit in creating, because last night some more balanced analysts were starting to express surprise at the breadth of Trump's base. I'm reminded of Mel Brooks's The Producers.

Jimmy Kimmel agrees with you!

[BlueK]

I don't claim to be balanced in what I read. I said I only read the liberal press; I don't read LDS apologetics (except the Crucible of Doubt). I don't doubt others have said what the Times is saying about Trump's base, but I was reacting to your linking a New York Times article. The fact is, a lot of Republicans don't like Trump because he's not ideologically pure enough--on social issues. In fact, NPR is now having a good time inviting "Christian" talk show hosts, politicians and clergy on the show to express horror at Trump. These people--most of whom are themselves innately haters--are expressing shock that Trump didn't quickly enough repudiate David Duke. So yes, they engage in the same spin as the New York Times. I didn't say that the New York Times is the only one. I do think the New York Times has led developing the (ironically) anti-Trump narrative, however. And unlike the conservatives, the NY Times wants him to win the nomination. And as I've noted, many of the conservatives who are belittling Trump and his base are worse than he is in all the ways that we deplore Trump--and other ways as well.

You're just not paying that much attention. National Review and every other Republican establishment leaning source is bashing Trump mostly on things not social-issues related.

[YOhio]

I only have two categories.

Candidates so awful, bad, corrupt and/or evil they don't merit consideration or discussion:
Hillary
Sanders
Trump
Cruz

WORST TO LEAST WORST
1. Rubio
2. Kasich

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't claim to be balanced in what I read. I said I only read the liberal press; I don't read LDS apologetics (except the Crucible of Doubt). I don't doubt others have said what the Times is saying about Trump's base, but I was reacting to your linking a New York Times article. The fact is, a lot of Republicans don't like Trump because he's not ideologically pure enough--on social issues. In fact, NPR is now having a good time inviting "Christian" talk show hosts, politicians and clergy on the show to express horror at Trump. These people--most of whom are themselves innately haters--are expressing shock that Trump didn't quickly enough repudiate David Duke. So yes, they engage in the same spin as the New York Times. I didn't say that the New York Times is the only one. I do think the New York Times has led developing the (ironically) anti-Trump narrative, however. And unlike the conservatives, the NY Times wants him to win the nomination. And as I've noted, many of the conservatives who are belittling Trump and his base are worse than he is in all the ways that we deplore Trump--and other ways as well.

Wait a minute. I link a New York Times article and you respond with this?

Yeah, I know this makes you feel good. It's very predictable that you'd seize on this.

Unlike you, I have been reading and linking articles from all across the political spectrum. If you make zero attempt to be balanced, why are you commenting on my alleged bias?

Furthermore, please stop pretending to have any special political insight. By your own admission, you are willfully ignorant. For example, you state:

I do think the New York Times has led developing the (ironically) anti-Trump narrative, however.

How do you have the chutzpah to make statements like that, given your media isolation? Amazing.

[Goatnapper'96]

I only have two categories.

Candidates so awful, bad, corrupt and/or evil they don't merit consideration or discussion:
Hillary
Sanders
Trump
Cruz

WORST TO LEAST WORST
1. Rubio
2. Kasich

I am with you.

[snowcat]

Jimmy Kimmel agrees with you!