US presidential election - Trump vs Hillary

[sunceKOtepsija]

slijedeca debata za par dana

[Challenger__]

koliko istih ovih tema ima??

Jedna, jedina.


Ostale favorizuju jednog kandidata (npr. "Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About") ili se tiču USA generalno.

[jeza u ledja]

Posto je bila prica neki dan o pouzdanosti anketa, evo jedan clanak danas iz Financial Times:

US election pollsters draw blank in search for ‘shy’ Trump voters

Specialists struggle to predict who will actually turn out and vote


As polls have turned against him, Donald Trump’s allies have speculated that there is a shy tribe of supporters who are reluctant to declare themselves and whose invisibility in the polls would mean Hillary Clinton’s advantage is being overstated.

The problem for the New York businessman? Pollsters have looked far and wide and deep into their methodology and they say they have struggled to unearth evidence of the shy Trump voter theory advocated among others by Kellyanne Conway, Mr Trump’s campaign manager.

The debate is just one of a legion of questions hanging over the accuracy of opinion polls heading into a razor-thin contest. Recent opinion polling mishaps in the UK, Israel and Spain have raised the stakes for pollsters heading into November, as has Mr Trump’s heavy emphasis on polls in his public statements — at least when they are going his way.

“It is a multidimensional challenge,” said Michael Dimock, president of the Pew Research Center.

Faced with an unconventional candidate such as Mr Trump, pollsters have been mindful of the so-called Bradley effect — named after a mayoral candidate in Los Angeles for whom polls misstated support. However, Douglas Schwartz, director of the respected Quinnipiac University Poll, said the primaries earlier this year had proved the theory of the shy Trump supporter wrong.

On balance, polls had been accurate in the primaries in gauging support for Mr Trump, he said. “My thinking is if it didn’t show up in the primaries it’s not going to show up in the general,” Mr Schwartz said. “The Trump voters don’t seem shy. At the rallies they don’t seem afraid to say how they feel.”

If there are questions about the accuracy of this year’s polls they hinge on specialists’ perennial struggles to predict who will actually turn out and vote leading up to November 8. “Really identifying who is going to be motivated to show up is one of the bigger challenges in election polling,” Mr Dimock said.

Among the big questions in this election are the effect of Mr Trump’s statements on Latino voters, who tend to turn out in smaller numbers than other groups but may be motivated by his divisive rhetoric on immigration. On the other hand, could Mr Trump inspire a larger than normal share of white, working-class voters to turn out at the polls?

Mollyann Brodie, head of public opinion research for the Kaiser Family Foundation and president of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, said the “likely voter” models that analysts use are one of the most contentious areas of debate among pollsters.

Even poll aggregators and those averaging poll results this year were making their own assumptions about the reliability of different polls and other factors in their models. “I definitely think it is a time for poll watchers and audiences to be looking for a variety of sources of information,” she said.

Michael McDonald, associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, said the US was not necessarily a “one size fits all electorate”, and that different states could see lower or higher turnouts than previously.

On top of this come methodological questions that dog opinion pollsters. A mounting share of polls is now being conducted online, for example, using an array of techniques, and the profession is divided over how reliable they are likely to prove.

While some pollsters favour telephone polls, response rates have been tumbling in recent decades, in part perhaps because people may be reluctant to answer calls from an unrecognised number, Mr Dimock said.

Mr Trump’s anti-establishment message also carried its own polling challenges as did the disenchanted voters most likely to support him. “If you despise politics and a pollster calls you up and wants to ask 20-30 questions about politics you are probably going to hang up,” said John Della Volpe, director of polling for the Institute of Politics at Harvard.

That applied equally to the challenges presented by millennials and the US’s growing Spanish-speaking Latino population, with many pollsters struggling to reach them in the first place or surveying voters only in English.

When Harvard’s Institute of Politics polled young voters earlier this year it found much heavier support for Mrs Clinton among those Latinos who chose to answer questions in Spanish rather than English, for example, said Mr Della Volpe. Just 1 per cent of the Spanish speakers said they would vote for Mr Trump versus 9 per cent of the English-speaking Latinos.

For all the recent ups and downs, the polls this year had also been remarkably consistent in pointing to a Clinton lead — with polls taken since Mrs Clinton’s first debate with Mr Trump last month underscoring that message. The RealClearPolitics website’s polling average has given Mrs Clinton a lead since the end of July.

Some experts play down the likelihood of a major polling upset, pointing to the US’s long history of presidential election polling. The sheer volume of polls this year in the US also carried its own value.

“With so many different folks producing results there would have to be such a fundamentally different electorate showing up on election day than anyone conceived of for there to be a major surprise,” Ms Brodie said.

[jeza u ledja]

I evo jos jedan clanak sa famoznog FiveThirtyEight.com, u vezi trenutnog stanja u utrci:

Election Update: How Big Is Hillary Clinton’s Lead?


Here’s what we know: Hillary Clinton is leading in the race for president, and she’s made meaningful gains since last week’s presidential debate. Clinton is currently a 72 percent favorite in our polls-only forecast, up from 55 percent just before the debate. That corresponds to a roughly 4-percentage-point national lead for Clinton, about where the race was as of Labor Day — before a series of mishaps for her in mid-September. Our polls-plus model, which blends polls with an economic index and generally produces a more conservative forecast, has Clinton with a 69 percent chance instead.

But don’t take our model’s word for it: Take a look at the polls for yourself. In the chart below, I’ve shown every swing state poll taken from the start of Clinton’s “bad weekend” on Sept. 10, through Sept. 25, the day before the debate — a rough stretch of polling for her. I’ve also shown every swing state poll taken since the debate was completed.



This makes for a pretty darned clear difference. In the set of pre-debate polls, Clinton was barely ahead. Out of 67 polls, she led in 34, trailed in 29 and was tied with Trump in four. That’s why our model had Trump drawing the Electoral College almost — but not quite — to a tie before the debate. We had a lot of data, much of it from high-quality pollsters. Clinton’s leads in potentially must-win states, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado, were tenuous. And she wasn’t clearly ahead anywhere else, although Florida and North Carolina were tossups. It wasn’t quite enough to make Clinton an underdog, but it was getting close.

But Clinton’s advantage in the post-debate data is just as clear. Out of 20 post-debate polls in swing states, she’s led in 18, trailed in only one (today’s Quinnipiac poll of Ohio) and was tied in one other.2 Overall, the post-debate polls look a lot like the results that President Obama had against Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, although with Ohio and North Carolina flipping sides. (Iowa is a good candidate for Trump also, but it hasn’t been polled since the debate.) That isn’t a coincidence, since Obama beat Romney by 3.9 percentage points in 2012 — right about where our model has the Clinton-Trump gap now.

To be clear, our model uses a more complex process than this to make its forecasts, one that relies heavily on intra-poll trend lines. (Did Clinton gain or lose ground from the previous version of the same poll?). But it’s almost always reassuring when a complex process produces about the same answer as a simple one.

Speaking of trend lines, I’d remind you to be careful when examining them. Our model’s hypothesis is that Clinton has gained 2 to 3 percentage points since just before the debate, possibly with some upside on top of that based on events since the debate. Coming late in a close race, those 2 or 3 points are enough to improve Clinton’s odds quite a bit. (Think of an NBA team that sinks a clutch basket to go from a 2-point lead to a 4-point lead late in the game; its win probability improves a lot.) But Clinton’s post-debate gains are also not on the order of her convention bounce, which was something like 8 points instead — large enough to show up in almost every poll. Thus, you can find some polls where Clinton has gained as many as 7 points since the debate, but others where she hasn’t moved up at all — and even one or two where she’s lost ground. All of this is pretty normal.

If you’re comparing new results to polls from further back in time, you have to be more careful still. As I mentioned, for instance, the race looks about like it did on Labor Day. Thus, if a pollster last surveyed the race then, you probably wouldn’t expect much of a bounce for Clinton.

[jeza u ledja]

gop.com vec objavio vijest da je Pence pobijedio podpredsjednicku debatu, koja evo tek sad pocinje. Hahahah

[ljevoruki]

"shy" Trump voters i clanak iz NYT kao da je preslikan iz BiH 1990.
Svi ce ko biva glasati za Reformiste i Antu Markovica, nece niko za nacionalne stranke.
Bojim se da ce biti puno stidljivih glasaca , puno vise nego sto se mi nadamo.

[jeza u ledja]

"shy" Trump voters i clanak iz NYT kao da je preslikan iz BiH 1990.
Svi ce ko biva glasati za Reformiste i Antu Markovica, nece niko za nacionalne stranke.
Bojim se da ce biti puno stidljivih glasaca , puno vise nego sto se mi nadamo.

Sve je moguce.

Samo par stvari. Glasaci Trumpa nisu bas stidljivi, cak naprotiv - jako su glasni. To je bar argument nekih analiticara, koji priznajem, ima rupa, jer nisu to glasaci o kojima je rijec, vec oni dodatni, ubiquitous suburban voters, koje uvijek spominju.
Druga stvar, ne mozes porediti 1990u BiH i 2016 SAD. Ne znam kakve su bile ankete tada, i da li ih je uopste bilo, no i da jeste, nisu nikako mogle biti uradjene pravilno, niti od ljudi koji su imali iskustva sa takvim javnim istrazivanjem. Slicno kao i sa Brexitom.
S druge strane, u SAD imas firme koje se bave time 50+ godina, sa istim pitanjima. Pogotovo sad, sve je vise i vise anketara koji izmisljaju nacine kako ce drukcije postaviti pitanje. Svaki dan izljecu neke ankete, tako da, mogucnost greske je vjerovatno vrlo mala. Fino pise na kraju clanka, ako ankete toliko fule da Clinton bude vodila 3%+, a Trump pobijedi, to ce biti jako veliko iznenadjenje.

I jos jedna stvarcica. Clinton ima malu prednost u odnosu na Trumpa sto se tice elektorskih glasova. Cak i kad bi bili bare-bare u procentima, ona bi bila u maloj prednosti, cisto zbog strukture drzava u kojima vodi. Mislim to vazi za svakog Demokratskog kandidata u ovom trenutku.

Sto se tice debate, meh. Mislim da je Kaine malo bio previse napadan, bez potrebe, no Pence je na svaki napad sutio, jer jednostavno nije imao odbranu. Mislim da ono sto su napravili jednostavno nalozili one koji ce vec glasati za njih.
Kao sto se pretpostavljalo, kao sto je i uvijek bilo do sad, podpredsjednicka debata nece nista promjeniti.
Da bih pobjedu mozda Pencu, cisto jer je bio smireniji. Kaine svakako izgleda ko ucitelj.

Pence...vrlo lako bi bio najkvalitetniji kandidat u GOP da se kandidovao.

Eh jos samo da dodam. Ja ne mislim da postoji stvarno taj "gap" izmedju ljudi koji bi rekli da ce glasati za Clinton/Trumpa/nekog treceg i onih koji ce stvarno glasati za njega. Slican se argument moze napraviti u korist Clintonove. Ja recimo znam dosta ljudi koji su zuc prosipali navijajuci za Sandersa vs Clinton, pa se do sada predomislili. Medjutim jos uvijek postoje neki koji to nece naglas reci.

[Jack Be Nimble]

Pence bio bolji, nije se prepustio Kejnovim napadima. Sada treba vidjeti da li ce oni Republikanci koji nisu za Trumpa odluciti glasati za njega zbog Penca.

[jeza u ledja]

Pence bio bolji, nije se prepustio Kejnovim napadima. Sada treba vidjeti da li ce oni Republikanci koji nisu za Trumpa odluciti glasati za njega zbog Penca.

Meni licno je bio bolji debatant, ali sustinski losiji. Meni, mislim koji pratim sta se desava. Pence nije nista rekao na Kaineove napade. Jebote ako si principijelan, a nisi ocigledno, onda bar budi na strani covjeka kojeg predstavljas, a ne da samo mases glavom lijevo-desno dok ga ovaj drugi napada....ha, bas sad htio da napisem bukvalno sta cujem ovi na MSNBC govore - "Pence didn't defend Trump's comment because they were indefensible" ....bas to htjedoh napisati . Eto cisto da znas ko mi kroji misljenje.

Na kraju debata u vezi abortusa i crkve - sve je receno. Ljudi su polarizovani u vezi toga i mislim da je razlika toliko jasna da samo to, u ovisnosti na kojoj si strani, odredjuje za koga ce ljudi glasati.

Inace, mislim da je ovo predsjednicka debata, slozio bih se da je Pence izgledao "predsjednickije".
Jebiga ljudi ne zele da priznaju da je bar 3/4 ljudi jasno odredjeno po pitanju za koga su, i nema te sile da bi glasali za ove druge. Ono, kad se cudimo sto bi toliko ljudi glasalo za njega...

[Jack Be Nimble]

Pence bio bolji, nije se prepustio Kejnovim napadima. Sada treba vidjeti da li ce oni Republikanci koji nisu za Trumpa odluciti glasati za njega zbog Penca.

Meni licno je bio bolji debatant, ali sustinski losiji. Meni, mislim koji pratim sta se desava. Pence nije nista rekao na Kaineove napade. Jebote ako si principijelan, a nisi ocigledno, onda bar budi na strani covjeka kojeg predstavljas, a ne da samo mases glavom lijevo-desno dok ga ovaj drugi napada....ha, bas sad htio da napisem bukvalno sta cujem ovi na MSNBC govore - "Pence didn't defend Trump's comment because they were indefensible" ....bas to htjedoh napisati . Eto cisto da znas ko mi kroji misljenje.

Na kraju debata u vezi abortusa i crkve - sve je receno. Ljudi su polarizovani u vezi toga i mislim da je razlika toliko jasna da samo to, u ovisnosti na kojoj si strani, odredjuje za koga ce ljudi glasati.

Inace, mislim da je ovo predsjednicka debata, slozio bih se da je Pence izgledao "predsjednickije".
Jebiga ljudi ne zele da priznaju da je bar 3/4 ljudi jasno odredjeno po pitanju za koga su, i nema te sile da bi glasali za ove druge. Ono, kad se cudimo sto bi toliko ljudi glasalo za njega...

Moj prijatelj kazao "Pence rekao sebi jebo Trumpa, ja se trebam spremati za 2020" Bas je i tako izgledao, iskoristio je ovu debatu kao svoj prvi dan kampanje za 3 godine. Opet na kraju obadvojica su rekli ono sto njihovi zele da cuju. Nadam se da ce Hillary u nedelju barem pokusati da vodi politicku debatu, a ne da potpaljuje Trumpa citavo vrijeme.

[jeza u ledja]

Ja bih volio da se vodi prava politicka debata, al jebiga. Ja mislim ta politicka debata mijenja vrlo malo misljenja na predsjednickom nivou. Mislim nevezano za potpredsjednicke debate.

A Pence...da, to je buducnost GOP.

Usput, Kaine je prozvao Trumpa veceras "manijakom i budalom".

[KB9]

u startu sam reko bolje iko drugi nego hilari tako da bolje tramp definitivno

[ljevoruki]

Ja bih volio da se vodi prava politicka debata, al jebiga. Ja mislim ta politicka debata mijenja vrlo malo misljenja na predsjednickom nivou. Mislim nevezano za potpredsjednicke debate.

A Pence...da, to je buducnost GOP.

Usput, Kaine je prozvao Trumpa veceras "manijakom i budalom".

Pence me iznenadio, prvi utisak je da ga poredim sa Dick Cheney, mislim da bi on vukao konce i kreirao politiku i ratove.
Opasan lik, pametan i zajeban, Kaine mi je pored njega izgledao kao Bakir pored Vucica.
Ko razumije, shvatice.
I sto neko od analiticara sinoc rece - Pence se sprema za 2020, jebo Trumpa.
A to nazivanje Trumpa budalom i manijakom je bio los potez, Pence mu je odgovorio da je to nisko cak i za Hilarine standarde.

[Acid25]

Njemu je bitnije kako mu kosa izgleda, od vanjske politike.

[jeza u ledja]

Kako izgleda Donald Trump poslije napada orla?

Ovako:

[daddy-kool]

Njemu je bitnije kako mu kosa izgleda, od vanjske politike.

Evo, pao je na najvažnijem testu pravog amerikanca.
Čuj ne zna sa bald eaglom?

[Acid25]

[AleksoMKD]

http://nypost.com/2016/09/30/debate-com ... as-faulty/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ne/502484/

Izgleda da je ipak Tranpov mikrofom bio pokvaren.

[sunceKOtepsija]

slucajnost

[jeza u ledja]

Nikakav problem da se cuje na tv nije bio.

Cuj ovoga, "slucajnost?".
Ne, namjerno su mu sjebali mikrofon, pa se poslije vadili, mada niko nije primjetio da postoji ikakav problem, ali su opet priznali da je postojao problem.

[jeza u ledja]

Dobar clanak sa Daily Beast
(Jonathan Alter)

President Donald Trump’s Team of Terribles Would Bring Bridgegate to Oval Office
Secretaries Christie, Flynn, Gingrich, Giuliani, and Junior could all live up to the high bar their candidate has set for being dangerous and reckless.

Whenever I talk to Trump supporters, they always say two things: He knows business and he’d have “people around him” to rein him in. A guy who loses nearly a billion dollars in the boom economy of the 1990s is not exactly a star businessman.
And the team? OK, Mike Pence showed in the debate that he’d be a sane, if extremely conservative vice-president. But the rest of the gang does not inspire confidence. In any other year, the collected sins of the thugs, hypocrites, and hacks working on Trump’s behalf would be big news and lead to their banishment. This time, they all seem coated in Teflon.
If he wins, Trump’s likely White House chief of staff, senior advisers, and many of his Cabinet members would be nearly as reckless and dangerous as he is. The bar is high, but some could clear it.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, currently the head of Trump’s transition team, is too tarnished to be attorney general, his first choice after losing his bid to be the GOP vice-presidential nominee. But White House chief of staff requires no Senate confirmation and he is favored for the job. Because Trump has little or no interest in running the government, Christie—when he wasn’t being demeaned by Trump—would have broad leeway to shape the administration along the bully-boy lines that he and his boss have long favored.
I’ve been hanging out lately at the federal courthouse in Newark, where two of Christie’s closest associates are on trial for an act of civic depravity—intentionally tying up traffic at the George Washington Bridge on the first day of school to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, for not endorsing Christie during his 2013 reelection campaign.
On Tuesday, the prosecution’s star witness, David Wildstein, once again charged that Christie lied in denying knowledge of the dirty trick when it was underway, an allegation that neither side in the case has contested. Wildstein has consistently said that he and one of the defendants, Bill Baroni, who the governor had appointed as the deputy executive director of the Port Authority, laughed with Christie about the four-hour traffic jams that trapped ambulances and other first responders when the three men gathered that year on Sept. 11 at Ground Zero. Whether Christie knew of the dangerous scheme (which imperiled ailing motorists) in advance, he was clearly part of the cover-up when he said at a press conference that he thought the lane closings were part of a non-existent “traffic study.”
Politicians, like other people, never fundamentally change, which means Christie would bring his cesspool to Washington to splash around in. The Port Authority, with a budget bigger than most states, became what Wildstein described as a “goodie bag” for the governor’s use. When he wasn’t punishing disloyal politicians, Christie would arrange for Baroni and Wildstein to offer pieces of steel from the wreckage of the World Trade Center to New Jersey political supporters. Before the scandal broke he intended to give those same goodies to backers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states. Port Authority employees were told they had a “constituency of one”—Christie—and all decisions were to be made with that political imperative in mind.
Trump and Christie wouldn’t hesitate to politicize the federal bureaucracy, turning agencies into his personal fiefdoms. Newt Gingrich confirmed this when he said that stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal workers would be a Trump priority.
Christie denies he’s sending his operatives to Trump, but they’re ending up there anyway. Bill Stepien, who ran his 2009 and 2013 gubernatorial campaigns, is currently Trump’s national field director. During a 2013 press conference when Christie was misleading reporters about the lane closings, one of his aides, Christina Renna, texted a colleague: “He [Christie] just flat out lied about senior staff and Stepien [then the governor’s deputy chief of staff] not being involved.” Another former Christie staffer, Matt Mowers, testified that a newly-created governor’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs included a special spreadsheet to track which mayors and other New Jersey officials were loyal to Christie. Those who weren’t—who didn’t endorse a governor in the other party—were rebuffed when they tried to get anything from Trenton for their constituents. Mowers, too, now works for Trump, and has already said he’s keeping a list of politicians and reporters he hates.
Another senior White House post would almost certainly be filled by Stephen Bannon, who is the CEO and chief strategist of the Trump campaign. Bannon is staying off TV these days and for good reason. Breitbart News, the scurrilous site he ran until recently, continues to publish racist and anti-Semitic articles. And Bannon, who has a well-documented history of calling women the “c word,” doesn’t want to be reminded on TV that he was charged 20 years ago with beating his wife after a police officer saw red marks on her wrists and neck (the charges were eventually dropped when she missed a court appearance).
Tax avoidance apparently runs in the Trump political family. Bannon set up what appears to be a phony residence in a vacant house in Florida, perhaps to avoid California state income taxes. The law requires residency six months of the year; Bannon apparently lived there rarely, if at all.
It’s not clear who would finally make it into Trump’s Cabinet, as filibusters by Democrats (joined, perhaps, by anti-Trump Republicans) could scuttle some of his nominations. But Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt that he’d like to appoint former UN ambassador John Bolton as secretary of state. Bolton, who lied about Hillary Clinton in 2012 by saying she faked a concussion to get out of testifying on Benghazi, makes Trump look diplomatic by comparison. With their taunts and abusive rhetoric, the two of them would likely get the United States into some kind of military confrontation within months, if not sooner.
The war would be managed by retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who leads Trump’s short-list for secretary of defense. Flynn is a semi-regular analyst on RT, an English-language Russian TV network that offers thinly-veiled propaganda. Last year, Flynn attended RT’s gala in Moscow and sat with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s former campaign chief, Paul Manafort, worked as an adviser to Viktor Yanukovych, who was Putin’s puppet president of Ukraine, among other criminals and oligarchs. Another Trump adviser, Carter Page, is under federal investigation for using his close financial ties to the Kremlin to weaken sanctions against Russia and undermine U.S. foreign policy. A sign of the influence of these pro-Putin advisers came in the Hofstra debate when Trump claimed—contrary to the FBI—that Russia had not been implicated in hacking into U.S. systems.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration, is gunning for attorney general and might get it. Giuliani has been auditioning for top sycophant and deputy sexist-in-chief, trashing President Obama (“I do not believe that the president loves America”), peddling conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health (“Go online and put down ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ take a look at the videos for yourself”), and calling Lester Holt biased, while saying of tax-evading Trump: “Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman?”
Like Gingrich, another serial adulterer who hopes to help run the Trump administration, Giuliani is brave enough to scale hypocrisy’s heights. The man who let his second wife know he was divorcing her via a news conference at Gracie Mansion is now urging Trump to get tough with Hillary over Monica Lewinsky. Between them, Trump, Giuliani, and Gingrich have nine marriages to Hillary’s one.
I almost forgot the third thing Trump supporters invariably say when explaining why, despite his faults, they will vote for him: Such a nice family! Ivanka and Eric would tend to the family business and of course make sure the Trumps continue to pay no income taxes while dad is president. But Donald Jr. is more public-spirited. A lifetime member of the NRA who has hunted endangered leopards, elephants, and buffalo, Donnie has said publicly that he wants to be the next secretary of the interior.
Rest assured. In Trump’s Washington, he’ll get it.

[Acid25]

Pokvaren je njemu mozak. Vidi se da je amater.
Kako Hillary može držati jezik za zubima? Svi u Rusiji znaju da im se teško ako ona dobije izbore. Opet u Americi niko o tome ne govori.
Ali se zato govori kako je Trump rasista i kako će graditi zid.

Masoni se nisu morali puno truditi oko njega. Sam pao sam se ubio.

[jeza u ledja]

On ima toliko fatalnih greski za jednog kandidata da je sam njegov uspjeh do ovdje fascinantan. Jebiga tu te valjda dovede kombinacija TV celebrity statusa, statusa bilionera, ksenofobicnih i rasistickih ispada, te plejade nesposobnih kandidata. Plus na to dodati godine i godine alt-right bljuvanja po svemu sto ima veze sa zdravim razumom (vlada, mediji, nauka, obrazovanje, itd) i dobije se Donald Trump kao kandidat GOP za predsjednika SAD.

Toliko ima materijala za "napad" na njega da je u stvari strateski problem s koje strane napasti. Prosto se nema vremena i prostora iznjeti svaka cinjenica, obrazloziti i promovirati. Samo jedan detalj bi bilo kog normalnog politicara u sekundi izbacio iz trke.
Recimo, Trump se na jednom mitingu rugao novinaru koji je nesto lose napisao o njemu (nista specijalno, pisao je da nije tacno da se hiljade ljudi radovalo na ulicama u New Jerseyu kad su padali tornjevi). Taj novinar je paralizovan ili tako nesto, ili mu je samo ruka paralizovana, nemam pojma, ali ovo, SAMO ovo, bi bilo kog normalnog diskreditovalo:



Ne moram uopste spominjat ista druga, a materijala ima da se pisu stranice i stranice. Kakav kreten moras biti da se ovako rugas nekome?

[Challenger__]

Svi u Rusiji znaju da im se teško ako ona dobije izbore.

Možeš li pojasniti ovo... Šta će im raditi baba?

[jeza u ledja]

Nece im sigurno biti klijent u stilu oligarha sto bi Trump bio sigurno.