I'm sure we'll hear a lot from Trump today now that they've identified that the NY/NJ bombings were foreign operatives.

For Trump, I suppose this is fairly reserved.

The elder George Bush looking like he's voting for Hillary:

George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary Clinton - POLITICO

Two thoughts:

I wonder if Trump will go off on him ("I like Presidents who get re-elected!")

I don't think that this will move the needle. I think that the only person whose endorsement could matter at this point is George W. Bush.

Third point:

TRUMP: Let's see what would happen if we took former President's security details away. Let's just see.

I do think he will go off on him as he can't resist going after those who criticize him. He called the Chicago Cubs one of the worst run organizations after the guy who owns them gave money to a Never-Trump campaign in Illinois. The same Cubs with one of the best records in baseball, going to the playoffs, and at least one minor league team (Myrtle Beach Pelicans) who won their minor league title.

Maybe this gets some older Repubs to vote Hillary.. My Trump supporters on Facebook wrote off the Bush's a long time ago.

well given what he's said about Clinton in this vein, I wouldn't put it past him to do it here either. You would think this would piss off Texans and Republicans though. But in this election, who knows?

People are willing to overlook all sorts of things, as long as the guy in question is on their team. Just like in sports.

This election proves this more than any election in the modern era, perhaps ever.

Pretty much this.

Laura was still reasonably well regarded afaik, as was/is the dad.

Shrub? Not so much.

Though this Hillary-vote IS from the dad.

My bad, misread it.

In that case senility is a horrible thing to watch happen to people.
(Both his and perhaps mine too ;) )

Random question:

What are the odds that the first debate does not happen? What odds would you have to be getting to bet that it won't?

No insight or news inspiring this question. Just wondering about how sure one can be of anything in this strange election.

:)

Given Trump's history with debates, I would have said there was a chance of him skipping this one, if he was clearly behind in polls, and most Republicans were supporting a vote for Hillary. Since this is not happening now, can't see him skipping the debates and losing his last chance to reach out to independents and minorities.

I think that the debates will happen. But I actually take the opposite view. Trump's team has seen him do very well since they have started controlling his message. No press conferences. No unscripted speeches. No interviews (I think) other than Fox News and Dr. Oz. I could see his team (not him) really worried about the debates.

If he was still down by 5+, maybe they throw the hail mary. But now I see them looking at those trendlines and thinking "if we can just stay the course and keep this about Hillary, we can eek this one out."

All that said, I wouldn't think about taking the "no debate" bet until the odds were at least 95% or better.

I think there's a little more value than that in a NO DEBATE bet, but not much upper single digits to 10% maybe. Based almost solely on the fact that Trump did skip a primary debate.

Teh Donald has been tweeting today...

Crooked Hillary has been fighting ISIS, or whatever she has been doing, for years. Now she has new ideas. It is time for change.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2016

Do people notice Hillary is copying my airplane rallies - she puts the plane behind her like I have been doing from the beginning.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary - see you at the debate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2016

PredictIt for the 1st debate...

Will it happen: .96
Basket of Deplorables: .33 (seems low)
Pneumonia: .23
Benghazi: .40
Crooked Hillary: .40
Third Party: .08
Most Watched Ever: .60

I like that Trump thinks he is the first person ever to have a speech in front of an airplane.

There are a bunch of replies to that tweet with pics of Presidents/tickets/candidates in front of airplanes, going back to Ike and Dick.

LOL. I missed this one the first time...

@anamariecox "I actually gave President Bill Pullman the idea to do his Independence Day speech in front of the jet. Never thanked me. Sad." pic.twitter.com/6CTueyUn8Q

— Mike Polk Jr. (@mikepolkjr) September 20, 2016

Amazing that this guy is dumb enough to:

a) post these questions on public message boards
b) try to delete them and assume people wouldn't immediately start pulling the archived copies

Clinton email wiper appears to have asked online how to hide 'VIP' info | Fox News

:lol:

Everything is a con.

He's a VIP running for office, it's cool. Hillary used that defense weeks ago.

Don King, a man whose legacy will be remembered far more fondly than was ever deserved. A man who has made his life running the hustle and con. No question he'd be a Trump supporter.

Cleveland didn't just name a street after him, they named the street he stomped a man to death on after him. :( Only in America!

Is it just me or is it really inappropriate for the white guys to be wholeheartedly laughing in the background at a story of black people always being looked down on, held back, regardless of success?

Nodding the head would likely be more suitable, not seeming to chortle "yeah, he's right, we DO do that!"

Rumors are starting to float that Cruz is going to endorse Trump. Seems like a dumb move to me. At this point, I'd think his best bet is to hope Trump flames out spectacularly, allowing Cruz to stand up as some sort of "knight in shining armor" who stood up to Trump and fought for conservatism while just about every other* prominent strongly-conservative Republican capitulated.

But endorsing now after taking such a strong stance in and immediately after Cleveland is going to look like "oh crap...he actually has a chance of winning...better get on board to try to save my own butt!"


*--Notable exception = Ben "I'm Taking My Kids To Watch a Dumpster Fire" Sasse.

I think almost all white people think that OTHER white people are the problem.

Surely the NRA will go bananas over what Trump said on Fox:

I'm not really surprised if this happens. He's a big opportunist, and now that Trump is doing better in the polls, he's setting himself up for what might happen in November and beyond. If Trump loses, he will be sure to remind everyone how he stood up to him.

OTOH, you've got Preibus out there making noises about candidates who don't endorse the nominee potentially not being allowed to run for the Republican nomination in the future.

So there's Ted Cruz's conundrum: he can be The Guy Who Stood Up To Trump, and potentially find himself unable to run for President in 2020 (as a Republican) if Trump loses. Sure, he'd have that "toldja so" cred, but he might not be able to do anything with it.

The alternative would be a third party run that tries to calve off as much of the TrueConservative(tm) wing of the GOP as it can, but you're not winning a Presidential election that way. Running hard right as a third-party candidate isn't going to get you crossover support, and even if you leave behind a rump Republican Party, that 10%, 15%, 35%, whatever it is you can't bring along is going to materially harm your chances in the purple states.

Or he can be The Guy Who Caved while still privately banking on Trump losing and then run in 2020 with the focus on the "toldja so" while playing down the fact that he ultimately DID endorse.

You know, kind of like how Ron Johnson's re-election campaign is trying to party like it's 2010 by painting Feingold as the sitting Senator and himself as the outsider challenging that out-of-touch incumbent.

A) There is a chance Preibus won't even be around 4 years from now.
B) How is he going to prevent anyone from running for the Republican nomination? If he could have that power, Trump wouldn't be the nominee right now.

It's probably just that they grew up in a time where there was no racism.

A Trump campaign chair in Ohio says there was 'no racism' before Obama | US news | The Guardian

THANKS OBAMA.

"There wasn't any" = "We weren't being called out on it"

He already showed his complete lack of character by attacking Trump on points where Trump was right.

If this doesn't work out I imagine he'll find a way to run as a (D) or an (L) or a (G) or just make something up.

The pressures of a national campaign -- and his lust for power -- pretty much sunk Cruz, it either crushed whatever character he had or revealed the absence of it.

I thought this was a humorous response from the Libertarian Party about Gary Johnson being left out of the debates...

Not surprisingly, complete bullshit from the (L)s.

There's been no moving of the benchmark for making the debates that I'm aware of. Those were available in advance and have even been posted here.

Unfortunately for these nutjobs (and fortunately for the rest of the nation) they simply aren't able to meet even those rather low standards.

Yes the Democrats and Republicans getting together and deciding that being on the ballot in all 50 states isn't enough but you also need a completely arbitrary number of 15%. I'm glad there will be no substance to the debate just Hillary attacking Trump and Trump telling how bad Hillary is. I yearn for the days where I could just drink Coke or Pepsi!

You are a smart guy, you do realize this was set up by the two party system to never allow a Ross Perot type guy in the debates again right?

Actually, Ross Perot would be in these debates according to the criteria.

Dola post...

Wouldn't it be great that the "nutjobs" would show how poor of a choice they are and how Donald Trump really is the best option out there Jon?

If you can't pull 15% against a field this unpopular, exactly how relevant are you?

There is a consistent & repeated rejection of the bizarre policies proposed by the (L)unatic Party. By virtually everyone. Candidates from the KKK Party and the Black Panther Party would have more relevance at this point.

Nope. Not the 1996 Ross Perot. Which is exactly why the rules were created right around that time. Even funnier is the 2000 Reform Party primary candidate Donald Trump making basically the same argument about the "rigged system".

Yes because the parties you mention are polling in the 8-12% range. :confused:

QFT. Historically unpopular candidates from the two major parties and both your POTUS and VP candidates not only have held elective office before, they're also not particularly fringe on policy. This was the Libertarian Party's opportunity to go over 15%.

Of course, if the two major parties go forward with nominating reality show candidates and the Libertarians go forward with nominating former governors, then maybe it wasn't the last chance.

1992 Ross Perot would. So you just like moving the goalposts, or just complaining or what?