USA Today poll

[Guest]

A poll in USA Today shows Donald Trump leading the Regressives, even over Jeb Bush.

However it also shows Trump losing to Sec. Clinton.

[Guest]

A poll in USA Today shows Donald Trump leading the Regressives, even over Jeb Bush.

However it also shows Trump losing to Sec. Clinton.

Did it mention we have over a year until a candidate is selected ?

THAT is, right now, the most important thing to consider.

[Guest]

You are firing a shot at the Republicans by calling them "Regressives".

That term regressives is a better fit for the progressives. They rhyme. I am not a Republican.

[Guest]

You are firing a shot at the Republicans by calling them "Regressives".

That term regressives is a better fit for the progressives. They rhyme. I am not a Republican.

You won't influence them one bit. They have their marching orders on what terms to use and when to continue tying to aggravate any opposition.
Also underlines the narrow limits of what they are allowed to engage......to bad because it sounds too much like a broken record that nobody pays attention when played ove and over and over and over...:1rotfl:

[Guest]

You won't influence them one bit. They have their marching orders on what terms to use and when to continue tying to aggravate any opposition.
Also underlines the narrow limits of what they are allowed to engage......to bad because it sounds too much like a broken record that nobody pays attention when played ove and over and over and over...:1rotfl:

It is a bit disconcerting, especially on this particular forum, when you have become accustomed to remarks from the left to be 100% mocking the opponent, and NO discussion of issues.

Kids, tired, what ?

[Guest]

It is a bit disconcerting, especially on this particular forum, when you have become accustomed to remarks from the left to be 100% mocking the opponent, and NO discussion of issues.

Kids, tired, what ?

Agreed. And yet that minority group that participates in that childish behavior would have you think "the bad guys" are the ones on the other side of the fence. They must think the rest of us are pretty stupid to fall for that........their true colors ring loud and clear on this forum. They are fooling no one but themselves.

[Guest]

Because it is so self gratifying They keep doing it with obnoxious repetition.
They must have to report to their information source how many times they use particular phrasing.......for which they get party green stamps.

Why else would anybody keep delivering validated crap?

[Guest]

A poll in USA Today shows Donald Trump leading the Regressives, even over Jeb Bush.

However it also shows Trump losing to Sec. Clinton.


Donald Trump said on Morning Joe this am that his financial disclosure form will be released either today or tomorrow, completing his final hurdle to making the first debate.

He went on to say the public will be amazed, or some other big adjective, at the amount of money he has made.

It seems the more Trump talks, the more people like him. He has definitely tapped into a winning formula.

Personally, I like that he is 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose and same-sex marriage.

[Guest]

Even though no candidate has been chosen by either party, Hillary polls way better than any Republican at this point in time.

Trump, Santorum, Farina, Carson, and the other wannabees have no chance at the nomination.

Clinton wins - that will be the outcome.

[Guest]

Even though no candidate has been chosen by either party, Hillary polls way better than any Republican at this point in time.

Trump, Santorum, Farina, Carson, and the other wannabees have no chance at the nomination.

Clinton wins - that will be the outcome.

I will just keep asking...SO WHAT ? It is over a year away from even picking candidates...so many debates...so many possible scandals, etc....Polling at this time means NADAH

EXCEPT for individual candidates within their own party.

Geez......if you are a Hillary supporter this allows you to sleep better, good for you.

[Guest]

I find it troubling that Trump leads even though he tweeted an American flag supporting the troop recently but if you look closely the soldiers are Nazi Warfen SS......

[Guest]

Even though no candidate has been chosen by either party, Hillary polls way better than any Republican at this point in time.

Trump, Santorum, Farina, Carson, and the other wannabees have no chance at the nomination.

Clinton wins - that will be the outcome.

She did early on in 2008....remember?

[Guest]

She did early on in 2008....remember?


Well, my prediction is that Hillary will win the Presidency in 2016.

Do you agree? If not, who do you predict as the next President?

No weasel wording, please. Just a yes or no for Part A. If a no, just a name for Part B.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Well, my prediction is that Hillary will win the Presidency in 2016.

Do you agree? If not, who do you predict as the next President?

No weasel wording, please. Just a yes or no for Part A. If a no, just a name for Part B.

Thank you.

With 17 months to go no thanks. We all suspect Clinton will not be the only candidate for the democratic party. Like it or not I am not going to speculate who this far out. When the repuclican and democratic lead candidates finally shake out to the most likely from which a POTUS will come, then I will predict.
Republicans too many.
Democrats have yet to come out.

Here is what I will predict:
I refuse to accept that Clinton is the annointed nominee because I believe the democratic party at some point in this process is going to jilt her because she will continue to be viewed by more in the party as not electable. Then she will become a liability, more than she is right now. And a more likely candidate will displace her again.

Sorry I don't play the yes or no game with insufficient information.....call it what you will! Sorta like picking next years KY Derby winner for May 2016....today!!!!!

[Guest]

My contribution to this thread is that we are a long way to voting and polls mean nothing at this point. Finally we have all but one candidate who is bold enough to disclose his true feelings and beliefs on subjects. While I find it refreshing I am not so certain that it would play well in the position of president. I also am not comfortable with a candidate whose credibility and honesty are clearly questionable. Again that won't play well in the position of president. How do I know well we have experienced it for the last 6.5 years.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The current polls are extremely important since they will determine who gets invited to the first debate on Fox News in less than three weeks. Unless Fox changes the criteria soon, only those polling in the top ten will be on that stage. The other seven or eight might as well fold up their tents and go home.

There has never been, in recent memory, a time when a cable news network basically picks who can compete for a party's nomination.

[Guest]

The current polls are extremely important since they will determine who gets invited to the first debate on Fox News in less than three weeks. Unless Fox changes the criteria soon, only those polling in the top ten will be on that stage. The other seven or eight might as well fold up their tents and go home.

There has never been, in recent memory, a time when a cable news network basically picks who can compete for a party's nomination.

Yeah, Maddow on MSNBC has, as she always done in her shrill mocking manner, just keeps making things up in an effort to keep her viewers and keep them from going to Fox. She is really better served for the "trash talk" kind of TV, and probably where she may end up as ratings on that network continue to set new lows.

[Guest]

Yeah, Maddow on MSNBC has, as she always done in her shrill mocking manner, just keeps making things up in an effort to keep her viewers and keep them from going to Fox. She is really better served for the "trash talk" kind of TV, and probably where she may end up as ratings on that network continue to set new lows.


It is surprising that any poster on this forum would know what Rachael Maddow is talking about on her MSNBC show. What has she specifically said that is untrue? Last night her guest was the very conservative publisher of the very conservative Union Times Leader of New Hampshire. What did he say that was untrue?

[Guest]

It is surprising that any poster on this forum would know what Rachael Maddow is talking about on her MSNBC show. What has she specifically said that is untrue? Last night her guest was the very conservative publisher of the very conservative Union Times Leader of New Hampshire. What did he say that was untrue?

For one....

"MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Gets Facts Wrong Saying Fox News Changed Debate Rules.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said Thursday night Fox News appears to have tried to block Donald Trump from qualifying for the network’s upcoming Republican presidential debate in Ohio by making a last minute addition to its qualifying criteria.

“Today, Fox News apparently changed their debate rules,” Maddow said, suggesting the network had added a brand new requirement–that candidates provide financial reporting within a set time–that was designed specifically to keep Trump from being on the stage.

Why would a television network try to deny access to a known ratings draw–and the candidate running at or near the top of national polls? Maddow suggested Republicans wanted to avoid a “side show” or “fiasco.”

But the “change” that Maddow reported wasn’t a change at all–and certainly wasn’t a last-minute effort by Fox News to block Trump–since the financial disclosure requirement was among the original debate rules announced in May, before Trump’s entry into the race on June 16.

(The financial disclosure actually isn’t a Fox News rule at all. The network’s debate criteria require that candidates “file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).” It’s the FEC that mandates one of those filings be a financial disclosure.)



MSNBC #1 In 18-34 Demo Last Week | TVNewser (http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/msn)


I only posted what I posted because of a previous poster who took the daily shot at Fox, who obviously is in most peoples heads a lot, as they are deemed to be more powerful than a locomotive.

Maddow is a intelligent person who knows her niche. I am not a regular viewer obviously, but I do check all networks especially to see what they are leading with on the talk shows (do not confuse any of them with NEWS). I have seen this woman spend 45 minutes mocking someone, and making fun which she seems to think is cute.

[Guest]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/07/15/rachel-maddow-exposes-how-fox-news-gets-to-cash/204440


Here is a link to last night's show for anyone who might have missed it. Watch the tape and judge for yourself.

The fact remains that the RNC has made a mockery of the debates by allowing one network to pick and choose who gets to appear.

Many of the 'second tier' candidates are furious, and as of now, don't expect to see Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Chris Christie and others on the stage.

Fox has yet to name what polls they will use to get an average polling number. The difference between number one and number sixteen could fall within the margin of error. The difference between number ten (the cutoff) and number eleven could be one/tenth of one percent.

[Guest]

For one....

"MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Gets Facts Wrong Saying Fox News Changed Debate Rules.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said Thursday night Fox News appears to have tried to block Donald Trump from qualifying for the network’s upcoming Republican presidential debate in Ohio by making a last minute addition to its qualifying criteria.

“Today, Fox News apparently changed their debate rules,” Maddow said, suggesting the network had added a brand new requirement–that candidates provide financial reporting within a set time–that was designed specifically to keep Trump from being on the stage.

Why would a television network try to deny access to a known ratings draw–and the candidate running at or near the top of national polls? Maddow suggested Republicans wanted to avoid a “side show” or “fiasco.”

But the “change” that Maddow reported wasn’t a change at all–and certainly wasn’t a last-minute effort by Fox News to block Trump–since the financial disclosure requirement was among the original debate rules announced in May, before Trump’s entry into the race on June 16.

(The financial disclosure actually isn’t a Fox News rule at all. The network’s debate criteria require that candidates “file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).” It’s the FEC that mandates one of those filings be a financial disclosure.)



MSNBC #1 In 18-34 Demo Last Week | TVNewser (http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/msn)


I only posted what I posted because of a previous poster who took the daily shot at Fox, who obviously is in most peoples heads a lot, as they are deemed to be more powerful than a locomotive.

Maddow is a intelligent person who knows her niche. I am not a regular viewer obviously, but I do check all networks especially to see what they are leading with on the talk shows (do not confuse any of them with NEWS). I have seen this woman spend 45 minutes mocking someone, and making fun which she seems to think is cute.

The point that Maddow was trying to make is the FEC rules allow two 45 day extensions. Can a candidate request an extension and still be considered to be abiding by the FEC rules?

[Guest]

Rachel Maddow and most of MSNBC news is equivalent to tabloid news. Anyone who would watch that sideshow on a regular basis are the same people who spend a lot of time reading Star, The Inquirer, and similar rags while waiting in line at the grocery store. Real news is not relevant to them.

[Guest]

Rachel Maddow and most of MSNBC news is equivalent to tabloid news. Anyone who would watch that sideshow on a regular basis are the same people who spend a lot of time reading Star, The Inquirer, and similar rags while waiting in line at the grocery store. Real news is not relevant to them.

How did this discussion turn from one on polls and debates to one on the merits of TV networks? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Any opinion on Fox News being allowed to pick the GOP contenders?

[Guest]

Rachel Maddow and most of MSNBC news is equivalent to tabloid news. Anyone who would watch that sideshow on a regular basis are the same people who spend a lot of time reading Star, The Inquirer, and similar rags while waiting in line at the grocery store. Real news is not relevant to them.

Same as Fox!!!!

[Guest]

Every regressive, or Con, or whatever they are calling themselves these days loses to Mrs. Clinton.

As the Cons are so fond of saying ............

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!

[Guest]

Every regressive, or Con, or whatever they are calling themselves these days loses to Mrs. Clinton.

As the Cons are so fond of saying ............

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!

No you guys do the name calling.....just another nonsensical BS post....again!

[Guest]

This seems to be a recurring misunderstanding. Most news organizations have two sides: hard news and opinion. For Fox, Brett Baier is an example of the hard news side and Bill O'Reilly is an example of the opinion side. However, it isn't clear to me that MSNBC has much of a hard news side - they seem to be almost exclusively opinion. They are far left. Fox's opinion is to the right. Fox hard news is clearly the most unbiased. Fox leads in the ratings among cable news organization, sometimes by enormous amounts. MSNBC's rating are generally very low. I believe this reflects the extremism of their positions and the weakness of their hosts.

Same as Fox!!!!

[Guest]

The triple strength (XXX) kool aid is very strong on poll flavors!