Left wing media holding a second convention for Hillary now.

[westwall]

Crowds indicate level of support.

Stop right there, because no they do not. They indicate level of interest which is not the same thing.

If a tractor trailer across the road flips over and bursts into flames --- that draws a crowd too. Doesn't mean that crowd 'supports' the idea of flipping over and bursting into flames.

Again --- nobody in the world needs to go see Donald Rump for the purpose of finding out what he has to say. By now everybody knows too well what he has to say --- they're there to watch the delivery. Because there's a better-than-even chance that you get to witness another meltdown and maybe even a fistfight. They already know there's some ethnic/misogynist slur or some outrageous war fantasy or some juvenile trolling coming --- they just want to witness it happen live. Purely for the feeling of it.

Simply put, people go see Rump for exactly the same reason people watch fake TV wrestling. Again, people go to see freak shows. We've got one candidate who's a freak show and another who isn't. If you're a street vendor --- you go with the freak. That's where the audience is.

And nobody knows this phenomenon better than Rump. He's been playing this card the entire time, and he's obsessed with attention. Think back to his hissyfit about not going to a debate because mean ol' Megyn Kelly would be there, and how he held his own pseudo-event and then huffed "we'll see what the ratings are". Again --- attention. It's his entire obsession.

If rally audiences corresponded to voting support, you'd see Rump pulling 90% (or whatever the contrast is) of the vote total tomorrow.

But you won't. Voting is not going to see a freak show, even if it does have eerily similar results.

Ok. They indicate interest. What does it say when the interest in your candidate is so low that they can't fill a 500 seat room? Or that their running mate can't get more than twelve people to show up to an event? That seems like a reeally, reaally, low level of "interest".

 

[emilynghiem]

Crowds indicate level of support.

Stop right there, because no they do not. They indicate level of interest which is not the same thing.

If a tractor trailer across the road flips over and bursts into flames --- that draws a crowd too. Doesn't mean that crowd 'supports' the idea of flipping over and bursting into flames.

Again --- nobody in the world needs to go see Donald Rump for the purpose of finding out what he has to say. By now everybody knows too well what he has to say --- they're there to watch the delivery. Because there's a better-than-even chance that you get to witness another meltdown and maybe even a fistfight. They already know there's some ethnic/misogynist slur or some outrageous war fantasy or some juvenile trolling coming --- they just want to witness it happen live. Purely for the feeling of it.

Simply put, people go see Rump for exactly the same reason people watch fake TV wrestling. Again, people go to see freak shows. We've got one candidate who's a freak show and another who isn't. If you're a street vendor --- you go with the freak. That's where the audience is.

And nobody knows this phenomenon better than Rump. He's been playing this card the entire time, and he's obsessed with attention. Think back to his hissyfit about not going to a debate because mean ol' Megyn Kelly would be there, and how he held his own pseudo-event and then huffed "we'll see what the ratings are". Again --- attention. It's his entire obsession.

If rally audiences corresponded to voting support, you'd see Rump pulling 90% (or whatever the contrast is) of the vote total tomorrow.

But you won't. Voting is not going to see a freak show, even if it does have eerily similar results.

Dear Mrs. M. and Pogo
As a Trump supporter I have to agree more with Pogo that the media and liberal party machine has pulled enough voters to get them out to the polls, whereas the division on the right only Cruz or someone more Constitutionally or Christian based could have pulled together in unity. Trump was better for bashing back at the media, while Cruz and others were better for party unity.

Clinton has support of more bigwigs who the right will play down than those who quietly support Trump. The Clinton's have been building for this over many administration's and business and political relations, where Clinton is the big fundraiser for Democrats to help on all levels and races. She has more favors she can pull from more ppl while Trump is new at this in comparison.

The fact he stood his ground and stood his own against a huge political groundswelling building for years over Clinton's career is amazing and says a lot about Trump's tenacity as a man fighting a lone battle.

If Trump gets 40 to Hillary's 60 that's more than others would get at this lopsided game. Even if the pop vote goes 60/40 it looks like the Electoral vote will go closer to 70/30 by some estimates. If Trump gets less than 30 I'd say somethings wrong, but at this point of course it's 50/50 what can happen at the polls.

I hope Bush and others are right that Clinton can unite the parties. But after Trump cut down Cruz, and we know how hard that is to amend, I would expect demands for complete transparency and apology between the top party leaders before they would agree to stop this infighting. There has been nothing but resistance to attempts at accountabilty, and I don't believe the right will back down until God's truth is established as to what really has been going on. I believe unity will require establishing the whole truth, so taking the fifth amendment and hiding behind "assumed innocence until guilt is proven" isn't going to cut it.

I don't think Clinton has the pull or humility to own up to all the wrongs by Democrats in order to unite the party splits. I think Trump was more transparent and open about changing his mind whdn he does, but he also will need help of everybody to reunite the divided sides. Neither can lead this movement by themselves to unite around common plans, it will take all parties to resolve issues. And I don't think Clinton can pull that off, any more than Obama could, because of how they demonize the right as the enemy.

 

[Tilly]

The BBC reported last night that there are a lot of people voting for Trump - who've been so disillusioned in the past - that this is the first time they've ever voted. Go Trump!

 

[August West]

CNN and MSNBC holding a live rally with propaganda from Bill, Obama, Michelle, etc, on the eve of the election. This is unprecedented. Just when you think they can't go any lower they show you they're capable of worse. It should put to bed exactly how biased the media is, how rigged the system truly is, and that they are turning his country into a banana republic. Hopefully tomorrow Donald Trump will drive a stake into their chest and put these scumbags out of their misery.

^^
Drama Queen

 

[Roudy]

This country cannot stay a democracy unless there is an objective media to hold other branches accountable. Either way the media will face the consequences of their behavior this cycle, not that they did not already enjoy record unfavorability ratings.

 

[Pogo]

This country cannot stay a democracy unless there is an objective media to hold other branches accountable.

And as long as news media is commercially-based that ain't gonna happen. Because commercially-based means that media is going to stoke, or ignore, whatever delivers for its own self-interest -- not that of we the people.

As recently noted to somebody else, that means the media isn't going to be all in for one candidate over another. That doesn't serve them. A CLOSE race is what serves them, because that's where the audience is. More audience means higher ratings means more ad revenue means more profit. And that's the prime directive. That's exactly why they play up bullshit "scandals" -- because they draw flies. In other words they approach (what should be) their profession the same way Donald Rump approached his campaign -- and as a result earn the same level of veracity.

There should be no such thing as "news as performance art". But that's what we've let happen.

 

[Pogo]

Crowds indicate level of support.

Stop right there, because no they do not. They indicate level of interest which is not the same thing.

If a tractor trailer across the road flips over and bursts into flames --- that draws a crowd too. Doesn't mean that crowd 'supports' the idea of flipping over and bursting into flames.

Again --- nobody in the world needs to go see Donald Rump for the purpose of finding out what he has to say. By now everybody knows too well what he has to say --- they're there to watch the delivery. Because there's a better-than-even chance that you get to witness another meltdown and maybe even a fistfight. They already know there's some ethnic/misogynist slur or some outrageous war fantasy or some juvenile trolling coming --- they just want to witness it happen live. Purely for the feeling of it.

Simply put, people go see Rump for exactly the same reason people watch fake TV wrestling. Again, people go to see freak shows. We've got one candidate who's a freak show and another who isn't. If you're a street vendor --- you go with the freak. That's where the audience is.

And nobody knows this phenomenon better than Rump. He's been playing this card the entire time, and he's obsessed with attention. Think back to his hissyfit about not going to a debate because mean ol' Megyn Kelly would be there, and how he held his own pseudo-event and then huffed "we'll see what the ratings are". Again --- attention. It's his entire obsession.

If rally audiences corresponded to voting support, you'd see Rump pulling 90% (or whatever the contrast is) of the vote total tomorrow.

But you won't. Voting is not the same as going to see a freak show, even if it does have eerily similar results.

Ok. They indicate interest. What does it say when the interest in your candidate is so low that they can't fill a 500 seat room? Or that their running mate can't get more than twelve people to show up to an event? That seems like a reeally, reaally, low level of "interest".

Very simply it says that that available population wouldn't expect the unexpected to happen there --- which is the direct opposite of the other one. In a Rump rally you don't know what's gonna happen but you do know it's gonna be controversial. And that sells.

I don't know (or care) who fills what size room and I haven't been to a candidate rally since 1992. That doesn't inform me. And yet I vote, the entire ticket right down to County Commissioner of Paper Clips. So the latter does not follow from the former -- who knew.

Actually the one in '92 was a pretty tiny gathering in New Hamster, small enough that I got to meet the candidate and interact. If it's too big to do that it's pretty much worthless --- all you're going to see is a circus. You don't interact with circus.

And when I say "pretty tiny" it's empirical -- it never in a million years to count heads there and then compare it to other candidates' rallies, because that has never been the point. We're not selling circus tickets here.

 

[Pogo]

Trump was better for bashing back at the media, while Cruz and others were better for party unity.

.... The fact he stood his ground and stood his own against a huge political groundswelling building for years over Clinton's career is amazing and says a lot about Trump's tenacity as a man fighting a lone battle.

Actually it says a lot about (again) the media. If mass media, and by that I mean about 90% television, did not exist and these were still the two candidates, Clinton would be ahead by about 86 to 12. Simply because no one would have any idea who Rump is. Because he's a TV product.

But of course he wouldn't have got far enough to be that candidate without that identity anyway. Basically one party is running a career politician while the other party is running Billy Mays.

I don't think Clinton has the pull or humility to own up to all the wrongs by Democrats in order to unite the party splits. I think Trump was more transparent and open about changing his mind whdn he does, but he also will need help of everybody to reunite the divided sides. Neither can lead this movement by themselves to unite around common plans, it will take all parties to resolve issues. And I don't think Clinton can pull that off, any more than Obama could, because of how they demonize the right as the enemy.

Clinton is both a politician and a Democrat, which makes it pretty much a lock that she has no backbone. And Rump is a complete Narcissist who's never done anything in his life that wasn't for the direct benefit of Numero Uno. So neither of them are going to 'unite' anything and even if they or anyone else sincerely tries to do that, the entrenched binary-Eliminationist mentality will instantly spring into action to shoot it down. As long as the cybersphere, which is where we are right now, plays it all as if it's some kind of sports event where "my" team scores "points" against "your" team any way it can including entire rewritings of historical fact --- as long as that's going on NOBODY has a chance to unite anything.

 

[westwall]

Crowds indicate level of support.

Stop right there, because no they do not. They indicate level of interest which is not the same thing.

If a tractor trailer across the road flips over and bursts into flames --- that draws a crowd too. Doesn't mean that crowd 'supports' the idea of flipping over and bursting into flames.

Again --- nobody in the world needs to go see Donald Rump for the purpose of finding out what he has to say. By now everybody knows too well what he has to say --- they're there to watch the delivery. Because there's a better-than-even chance that you get to witness another meltdown and maybe even a fistfight. They already know there's some ethnic/misogynist slur or some outrageous war fantasy or some juvenile trolling coming --- they just want to witness it happen live. Purely for the feeling of it.

Simply put, people go see Rump for exactly the same reason people watch fake TV wrestling. Again, people go to see freak shows. We've got one candidate who's a freak show and another who isn't. If you're a street vendor --- you go with the freak. That's where the audience is.

And nobody knows this phenomenon better than Rump. He's been playing this card the entire time, and he's obsessed with attention. Think back to his hissyfit about not going to a debate because mean ol' Megyn Kelly would be there, and how he held his own pseudo-event and then huffed "we'll see what the ratings are". Again --- attention. It's his entire obsession.

If rally audiences corresponded to voting support, you'd see Rump pulling 90% (or whatever the contrast is) of the vote total tomorrow.

But you won't. Voting is not the same as going to see a freak show, even if it does have eerily similar results.

Ok. They indicate interest. What does it say when the interest in your candidate is so low that they can't fill a 500 seat room? Or that their running mate can't get more than twelve people to show up to an event? That seems like a reeally, reaally, low level of "interest".

Very simply it says that that available population wouldn't expect the unexpected to happen there --- which is the direct opposite of the other one. In a Rump rally you don't know what's gonna happen but you do know it's gonna be controversial. And that sells.

I don't know (or care) who fills what size room and I haven't been to a candidate rally since 1992. That doesn't inform me. And yet I vote, the entire ticket right down to County Commissioner of Paper Clips. So the latter does not follow from the former -- who knew.

Actually the one in '92 was a pretty tiny gathering in New Hamster, small enough that I got to meet the candidate and interact. If it's too big to do that it's pretty much worthless --- all you're going to see is a circus. You don't interact with circus.

And when I say "pretty tiny" it's empirical -- it never in a million years to count heads there and then compare it to other candidates' rallies, because that has never been the point. We're not selling circus tickets here.

Really? I think it means they can't stand her. So they don't care to breath in her stench.

 

[CowboyTed]

CNN and MSNBC holding a live rally with propaganda from Bill, Obama, Michael, etc, on the eve of the election. This is unprecedented. Just when you think they can't go any lower they show you they're capable of worse. It should put to bed exactly how biased the media is, and they are turning his country into a banana republic. Hopefully tomorrow Donald Trump will drive a stake into their chest and put these scumbags out of their misery.

I'm watching it on Sky. It's quite nauseating

Truly disgusting. Any true American including Democrats or Hillary supporters should be ashamed of what is happening now.

Well the disgusting bit is how the Media has done everything to try make it a horse race...

In any other first world country's media Trump would have been done and dusted.

If a woman had 5 children by three men would she be selected

 

[Roudy]

CNN and MSNBC holding a live rally with propaganda from Bill, Obama, Michael, etc, on the eve of the election. This is unprecedented. Just when you think they can't go any lower they show you they're capable of worse. It should put to bed exactly how biased the media is, and they are turning his country into a banana republic. Hopefully tomorrow Donald Trump will drive a stake into their chest and put these scumbags out of their misery.

I'm watching it on Sky. It's quite nauseating

Truly disgusting. Any true American including Democrats or Hillary supporters should be ashamed of what is happening now.

Well the disgusting bit is how the Media has done everything to try make it a horse race...

In any other first world country's media Trump would have been done and dusted.

If a woman had 5 children by three men would she be selected

Well, the left wing crooked media elevated Trump to the nomination by forking out over two billion dollars and carrying all his speeches, mainly because they felt he was the most beatable in a general election. And now they're having a tough time with their preferred opponent. LOL

 

[westwall]

CNN and MSNBC holding a live rally with propaganda from Bill, Obama, Michael, etc, on the eve of the election. This is unprecedented. Just when you think they can't go any lower they show you they're capable of worse. It should put to bed exactly how biased the media is, and they are turning his country into a banana republic. Hopefully tomorrow Donald Trump will drive a stake into their chest and put these scumbags out of their misery.

I'm watching it on Sky. It's quite nauseating

Truly disgusting. Any true American including Democrats or Hillary supporters should be ashamed of what is happening now.

Well the disgusting bit is how the Media has done everything to try make it a horse race...

In any other first world country's media Trump would have been done and dusted.

If a woman had 5 children by three men would she be selected

They have? You're a fucking loon for believing that horse shit. If the media were doing it's fucking job the shrilary would be sitting in a cell awaiting trial.