You will hear a lot of talk about how Trump attracted supposed new voters. He didn't, not in relevant numbers. He didn't "expand the map" like his surrogates say. He received less votes than both McCain and Romney. What happened is the opposite: it's the democrats that shrinked. They lost 5 million votes. While still winning the popular vote.
So to sum up:
* Romney and McCain had more votes than Trump;
The republicans continued with their trend of the last 10 years or so: slow decline of their ageing electorate.
This was actually updated this morning. Donald Trump has surpassed John McCain and is now on track to surpass Mitt Romney. It's honestly not that big of a deal since as it doesn't challenge the overall point and as far as I can tell he's still not on track to beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, but I just wanted to throw that out there. We probably won't have a finalized tally until next week.
In addition to that, what I found interesting was that even though Republicans lost fewer voters from 2012 than the Democrats, Trump's votes in raw numbers was actually below Romney's from 2012, a candidate that many people say lost because he did not excite his own party.
and yet, he won. I predicted Trump would win three months ago and the reason was that he was running against Hillary Clinton. That is why he won. President Obama's record, Obama care, the demonization of Russia attempted by the Clinton campaign, etc would all have been able to be overcome by any other Democratic candidate I can think of, but Hillary is despised by too many people in way too many demographic acrossed this country. All Trump had to do was to keep focused, keep point out he was running against Hillary and not arouse the left to get upset enough at him to shake off their complacency and go vote against him. So many thought there was no way he could win that they decided that they would not soil themselves by voting for Hillary. I work in the unemployment system here in Michigan and speak with as many as 200 people a day, people from all races, income groups, and backgrounds. It was not just the rightwingers and hardcore Republicans who despised Hillary Clinton, it was not just white men over 40 years old who despised her. She and her husband were the reason many, many women, black, Hispanic, asian and self identified Demoncrats I spoke to over the course of this election cycle gave me as why they did not vote. Many, many people who said they were Democrats told me they would not vote or they would vote for Dr. Jill Stein. Almost all said they wished Bernie Sanders was their candidate.
That's the problem with the climate change argument. If you focus on polar bears, coral reefs and endangered species, the blue collar workers in Wisconsin and Ohio don't care. They think you value fish over them. Instead, connect the environment to things the average Joe can relate to. Hammer home what lack of regulation can do to clean water, like Flint Michigan.
What happened in Flint Michigan was not due to a lack of regulation, it was due to certain individuals not following the regulations that were in place and then that criminal oversight being rubber stamped all the way up the line without anyone checking, then a criminal cover up of the oversight once the truth was discovered. Negligence, followed by negligence, followed by cover up, denial and damage control until critical mass was reached and the sludge hit the fan.
Not a lack of regulation.
Maybe a lack of effective regulation since it was easy for a small number of people to just "not follow certain regulations" and the engage in a criminal cover up. If your government officials that you elect (Hey R's) don't believe regulation is necessary, is it surprising that they try to ignore it when in office. If you elect people who are so fundamentally broken then of course the systems aren't going to work. Especially when you siphon the money off and refuse to give anyone the teeth to enforce the regs.
Again, that is not what happened in this case.
It was criminal stupidity and a cover up.
This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. There is blame to go for everyone involved, Democrat and Republican in this case but those are not distinctions that have any real bearing here.
This tragedy was bipartisan and they everyone involved deserves blame and to pay for what their negligence, indifference and cover up did to the innocent people of Flint.
That's the problem with the climate change argument. If you focus on polar bears, coral reefs and endangered species, the blue collar workers in Wisconsin and Ohio don't care. They think you value fish over them. Instead, connect the environment to things the average Joe can relate to. Hammer home what lack of regulation can do to clean water, like Flint Michigan.
What happened in Flint Michigan was not due to a lack of regulation, it was due to certain individuals not following the regulations that were in place and then that criminal oversight being rubber stamped all the way up the line without anyone checking, then a criminal cover up of the oversight once the truth was discovered. Negligence, followed by negligence, followed by cover up, denial and damage control until critical mass was reached and the sludge hit the fan.
Not a lack of regulation.
Sorry if i questioned your intelligence but you really are just going down all by yourself. And that's why Trump got there. Your nation is one influenced by racism and violence. And by the context of your comment i can't really see you being more "clever" or "cult" than anyone in my country, or continent.
As Winston Churchill once said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
PS: Please guys i know this is a forum where citizens of the United States of America are the majority. This isn't against anyone of you personally.
All nations are influenced by racism and violence whether they choose to admit it or not. I like you Winston Churchill quote, I think it is very appropriate right now.
What similarities between the results of this election and the vote for Brexit in Great Britain can be seen?
You are exactly right about this. Trump is reshaping the Republican Party in a way that I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan.
HAWKEYE7, first of all, it's good to see you again. I assume you're still mafia-ing?
Second, Trump isn't reshaping the Republican Party. What he's doing is taking the underlying racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity that the Republican Party had always known about but tried to pretend wasn't there and brought a big, fat spotlight right on it.
And here's the important part: that's not a good thing..
Thank you. It is very good to be back and to see that so many of the members I hold in high regard, yourself included, are still here. I have not played Mafia since I left, but it is one of the main reasons I am back. I am very much looking forward to playing again.
What you say about Trumps tactics is true and If I gave the impression that I thought it was a good thing I will have to do a better job of expressing myself. There is a great deal of similarity in how he is going about his campaign with how Ronald Reagan ran his first presidential campaign. Both appealed directly to the people, almost bypassing the mainstream media to get their message out. However, both were very good at utilizing media to convey their messages as well. The main and obvious difference was that Reagan appealed to his audience in a positive manner, with hope and optimism where Trump is cloaking his campaign with a shroud of positivity but it is for the most part a campaign appealing to traits of “racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity.” I don’t agree with it but I think he will win with it. Unfortunately.
All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good. Everything he said about his poling and the eventual outcome was true. the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers, just as they will pump up Hillarie's numbers, down play evidence of her wrong doing and her mental health issues, but it will do no good.
As others have said, the media acknowledged his poll numbers were high, but downplayed them because they underestimated Trump. Right now, though? Trump's numbers are abysmal. For ****'s sake, Georgia and Arizona have become swing states in this election. ..
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing.
He is well-versed in playing the media to his advantage. But the presidential campaign is not American Idol. It's a decision as to who will become the most powerful man in the world for four years. People live or die based on this decision. Countries may fall based on this decision. Trump has been very well at marketing snake oil, but that should not encourage us to buy his snake oil.
I wish I had as much faith in the American public as you seem to. Unfortunately, Walmart, QVC, Amazon and the Home Shopping Network are as successful as they are for a reason. Is it taking the low road?, yes. Is Trump above taking it if it means winning? Not on your life. He’ll do it in a New York minute. You are right about countries falling based on this decision. Countries have fallen, very recently, IE. the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Syria, as a result of traditional candidates being elected as well.
There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four.
Well, except for the Justice League, the X-Men, the Avengers, the Ninja Turtles, and the Power Rangers.
I think I let my generational bias get the better of me. For younger people Power Rangers, TMNT and X-Men maybe more beloved, but I would still say the Fantastic Four is more beloved the either the Justice League or The Avengers, and I am about the BIGGEST Avengers fan there is. I own every issue of the original comic series from number 10 on.
Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s.
Look at the numbers, comic book sales compared to movie ticket sales. Regular comic book readers are quite simply insignificant in the box office calculus..
I was referring to the potential market waiting to be tapped by creating a movie that would appeal to younger audiances and pull in the older waiting comic fans as well.
Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie.
I'd argue the opposite: as a rich white industrialist who is an embodiment of the Establishment, Tony Stark presented a huge challenge to make appealing. Marvel was very much sailing against the cultural wind here. And they pulled it off anyway.
This is a very interesting premise. It is a matter of perspective certainly. I look at the character that is Ironman and the fact that he is a rich white male does not register with me as anything negative. Stark is also a misogynistic, alcoholic narcissist, those traits do register as decidedly negative and they were downplayed, deliberately I think in the movies. I don't think even Disney could make the real Tony Stark likeable
??? I’m talking about how Trumps campaign has been covered and the predictions of his chances since the time he was first floated as a candidate to now. Judging from your signature and the link you provided I would guess you have been watching this election cycle as more than just a disinterested citizen. Do you think that Trump has not been dismissed as a serious candidate or his chances against the former Republican candidate field downplayed by the mainstream media at any time during the primary campaign?
You said that polls were cited to show that Trump would lose. You said that the "data" showed that he was losing, but that social media showed that he was winning. But the fact of the matter is that polls did show him leading, and leading handily. You didn't need to look at social media. You didn't need to measure facebook likes, or speculate that people might not be answering honestly in polls - Trump was leading every poll. All you had to do to see how Trump was performing was look at the polls.
Now that Trump is bombing in the polls, you want to pretend that polls and data misled us during the primaries, and that social media behavior was the accurate indiciator. But that's not what happened. To the extent that Trump defied expectations, he was defying analyst predictions, not polling numbers. The data was very clear on how he was doing, just as it's very clear now.
I apologize for the delay in responding, it is difficult to reply in a timely manner while I’m at work.
So you won’t answer my question, ok. You are fixating on poles because you have found a graph on the Huffington Post site that you think proves me wrong, that’s ok too. You are still not addressing the actual point I was making regarding how Trump was portrayed and what his chances were. The fact that he was dismissed and downplayed as a candidate is undenial. Poles were only a small part of the overall media coverage dismissing and marginalizing his chances, and there were poles at that time, early on, showing Trump behind other candidates. Just as there are poles now that are being shown to support that he is behind.
I personally do not think that these recent poles are completely accurate. I have seen a report I am trying to verify right now regarding the veracity of recent poles. There is a claim that the poling sample group was not random but that it was intentionally selected with a higher proportion of Democratic respondents. In the example I saw approximately 1200 registered voters were contacted. Rather than a random selection of voters a group of 550 Republicans had been contacted and 650 Democrats. This obviously will generate false data. I was hoping to have had time today to research the validity of these reports. If this is actually the case it is an egregious violation of the public trust at the least.
True, but this is not simply Facebook likes. The point I am making is that Trump is exposing an ugly truth about American politics and the media. All through the primaries the media dismissed him as a demagogue and predicted that he would be defeated. Polls were sited and a great deal of time and effort was put into showing how Trump could not realistically defeat a seasoned servant of the people like Christy, Bush, Cruz one after the other after the other. All that happened was that Trump Trumped each one and all of them at the same time. That is not how the media called it or how their data showed it until after he had slain several of the giants. If you look at how he was doing in the social media arena however you would have seen he was winning. I think that will happen again. Actions speak louder then words and what a person actually does on line is very telling as to how they will act in the future. Many people will say one thing when someone asks them for their opinion but whether that opinion actually reflects how they act or vote is not always in synch.
What are you talking about? Trump took the lead in the polls in July 2015, only a few weeks after he announced his candidacy, and then never lost that lead.
??? I’m talking about how Trumps campaign has been covered and the predictions of his chances since the time he was first floated as a candidate to now. Judging from your signature and the link you provided I would guess you have been watching this election cycle as more than just a disinterested citizen. Do you think that Trump has not been dismissed as a serious candidate or his chances against the former Republican candidate field downplayed by the mainstream media at any time during the primary campaign?
I’ve been very interested in finding out what poling numbers are being seem in areas not controlled by the mainstream and the numbers and summaries I have been able to find are interesting to say the least. There are few such summaries but they are interesting. The fact that the Democrats haven’t immediately posted Data and facts to discredit this is also telling. The response has been to ignore it as though it did not exist and that is usually an indication of them wanting people to take no notice if this in hopes it will not get legs in other outlets.
Democrats haven't immediately posted data to discredit that because looking at Facebook likes as a barometer for the election is stupid. It's completely delusional to think that means anything. Bernie Sanders had many more Facebook likes than Hillary Clinton (and led her in likes by a huge margin compared to Trump) - how'd that work out for him?
True, but this is not simply Facebook likes. The point I am making is that Trump is exposing an ugly truth about American politics and the media. All through the primaries the media dismissed him as a demagogue and predicted that he would be defeated. Polls were sited and a great deal of time and effort was put into showing how Trump could not realistically defeat a seasoned servant of the people like Christy, Bush, Cruz one after the other after the other. All that happened was that Trump Trumped each one and all of them at the same time. That is not how the media called it or how their data showed it until after he had slain several of the giants. If you look at how he was doing in the social media arena however you would have seen he was winning. I think that will happen again. Actions speak louder then words and what a person actually does on line is very telling as to how they will act in the future. Many people will say one thing when someone asks them for their opinion but whether that opinion actually reflects how they act or vote is not always in synch.
and to what extent the mainstream media is an active participant in it.
What do you mean by "mainstream media?" Are we talking print media? Radio? Television? Internet sources?
the major Newspapers, Radio companies, Television networks and the internet sources tied to them such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX news, Yes those are the mainstream media outlets I am referring to.
Since the internet has so many independent sources and sites it is much easier to find fresh perspectives and independent thought.
All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good.
That's because Trump consistently underperformed his polling. He obviously had enough support to nab the nomination, but not really an amazing amount (which is currently being proven by his general electorate polling).
That is one interpretation or it is also possible that the poling numbers were deliberately underreported in order to create the illusion that Trump had less support then he really does, it could also simply be a case of multiple, repeated failures to obtain a true random sample. Either way this type of public opinion manipulation has been a part of politics as long as there has been politics. http://race42016.com/2012/04/26/polling-101-weighting-the-sample/
the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers
#UNSKEWTHEPOLLS amirite? Why don't you ask Romney how well that went for him.
? Are you agreeing with me? Yes Romney complained of this type of media bias and he lost. Was the Media Bias a contributing factor to his losing, I think it is obvious the answer is yes. Was it the sole reason, no absolutely not. He ran a terrible campaign and was a terrible candidate.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing.
If he's the master of marketing then why is he hated among almost every group besides white male non-college graduates? Shouldn't he be a little more... appealing?
First, I do not agree that he is “Hated among almost every group besides white male non-college graduates?” That is such a grossly broad and incorrect exaggeration that it doesn’t warrant a reply.
I’ve been very interested in finding out what poling numbers are being seem in areas not controlled by the mainstream and the numbers and summaries I have been able to find are interesting to say the least. There are few such summaries but they are interesting. The fact that the Democrats haven’t immediately posted Data and facts to discredit this is also telling. The response has been to ignore it as though it did not exist and that is usually an indication of them wanting people to take no notice if this in hopes it will not get legs in other outlets.
In social media sites Trump is ahead, in some cases handily so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk
“Published on Aug 6, 2016
Good afternoon, I’m still reporting on fake polls.
Hats off to Addison Riddleberger columns for assembling this social media data.
The 2016 elections will be the elections social scientists will look back on as the turning point year – the year where an analysis of social media will prove more predictive than paid polling.
Assuming that is a correct prediction, what does that mean for the future of the Trump-Clinton presidential race. All of these stats are as of Aug. 4th, 2016.
Let’s go to the data – Facebook Likes:
Trump: 10,174,358 – 65.4%
Clinton: 5,385,959 – 34.6%
----
Facebook live stream posts (latest):
Trump: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1,500,000 views = 1,653,167 total = 83.0%
Clinton: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views = 332,000 total = 17.0%
*note: almost half of Clinton FB posts, the top comments are from Trump supporters. However, top comments on Trump’s page are hardcore Trump supporters only.
----
Twitter :
Trump: 10.6 million followers = 56.7%
Clinton: 8.1 million followers = 43.3%
-----
Youtube Live Stream (averages):
Trump: 30,000 live viewers per stream = 98.4%
Clinton: 500 live viewers per stream = 1.6%
-----
Instagram:
Trump: 2.2 million followers = 55.0%
Clinton: 1.8 million followers = 45.0%
-------
Reddit subscribers:
Trump: 197,696 = 71.3%
Clinton: 24,429 = 8.8%
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 = 19.9%
Bottom line: more than twice as many Reddit users think Clinton should be in jail as should become the next President of the United States.
I’m still reporting from Washington. Good day.”
This is a fascinating election year.
I think that I may have given the wrong impression of being a Trump supported. I’m a Libertarian and will be voting Libertarian in the election. I think this is a rare opportunity for a third party candidate to make real progress in breaking the death grip the Democrats and Republicans, along with their mouth pieces in the mainstream media, have on this country. I do however think Trump will win the Presidency. As the election draws near Republicans will begin to support Trump. Not all, and many may hold their noses while doing it, but they will see Trump as better then another Democrat and they will try to tap into the protectionist, anti-globalist sentiment that Trump has built his base on.
Take a look at those numbers. 70% of what Trump says is mostly false, outright false, or absurdly pants-on-fire false. Meanwhile, 72% of what Clinton says is true, mostly true, or about half true. There just isn't a contest.
I’m not disputing your numbers and perhaps I did not make my point clear. This issue is not fazing Trump, while Hilary has a well-documented reputation for evading the truth and telling half truths many, many people will say out and out, lying. As we have seen each time The Donald says something that is false and someone calls him on it rolls off his back like water off a duck. Every time Hilary has a brain short circuit it is about something like whether or not the FBI investigation of her found she told the truth or not. And it does stick. Look at the numbers of Americans and even self-proclaimed Democrats that think perceive her as untrustworthy. Every single time she misspeaks, refuses to be forthcoming or lies she does herself damage and the Donald will take advantage of that.
That is the point I was trying to make.
I remember when I was 4 years old and walking home from school. I was put into Kindergarten when I was 4 years old and back then it was normal for kids to walk home from school. My house was about a quarter of a mile from the school if you cut through the woods, which is what most of the kids in my neighborhood did. Anyway I had this dream that I was walking home and for some reason I turned and looked behind me and saw that there were no other kids around me. I was on the edge of the woods and behind me walking very slowly and staring right at me with very hungry eyes was an evil looking goat. I keep walking and the goat kept following me, getting a little closer as we went. It would snarl at me and bear it's teeth as it kept coming after me. I felt terrified, but I somehow knew that if I tried to run it would run me down and get me. I just keep trying to walk as fast as I could but not run to get home. All the while glancing back to see the goat creeping up closer and closer to me. I desperately looked around to see if there was anyone who could help me but there was no one. In my dream I never did make it home and I would always wake up at the end of my street with the goat directly behind me. It had reared up on it's hind legs and had it's mouth open snarling like it was going to lunge down and bite me. That's when I would wake up. I had that particular dream many times when I was 4 and 5 years old. Eventually I stopped having it but I don't recall exactly when that was or if something triggered it to stop. That damn dream used to scare the crap out of me.
You're assuming that dominating the airwaves is a good thing. His poll numbers resoundingly demonstrate that the media continually focusing on him is not a good thing for him. He has never been a favorite in this election and each of his gaffes only cements Clinton's formidable lead.
Besides, it's easy to realize the underlying pattern here: he's a narcissist that needs to be the center of attention at all times. This is not some brilliant strategic move.
Trump's base is not all white supremacists, I did not mean to imply that. However, he continually panders to them and to other elements of the alt-right and it is not working out for him. I doubt the GOP is going to let their next candidate so blatantly pander to such unsavory groups. Antiestablishment movements are nothing new and tend not to pan out.
They can significantly influence and reshape the party even if they don't win elections. Barry Goldwater and William Jennings Bryan were "anti-establishment" candidates and both were responsible for shaping the Republican and Democratic parties largely as they are today.
You are exactly right about this. Trump is reshaping the Republican Party in a way that I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It remains to be seen if he will have the strength to resist pressure to conform once he wins the presidency.
This election will be an eye opener for many people into the pervasiveness of corruption in Washington and to what extent the mainstream media is an active participant in it. All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good. Everything he said about his poling and the eventual outcome was true. the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers, just as they will pump up Hillarie's numbers, down play evidence of her wrong doing and her mental health issues, but it will do no good.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing. That is how the other republican candidates got their asses handed to them and it is how he will beat Hillary. I think he is only now starting to open up on her. It's going to be very interesting the information Trump exposes about her. The fact that she can't seem to tell the truth even about minor things that are easily fact checked just does Trumps work for him.
Stay tuned kids. They will be talking about this presidential campaign for decades as a turning point in US politics.
One of things I found fascinating is that half the villians they chose to use were not just obscure, they were *radically* obscure. We've all heard of the Joker. We've mostly heard of Harley. I've played enough of Arkham games to know who deadshot is.
But when you're choosing villians who are too obscure for the DC deckbuilding game to have used them - and they've used hundreds of DC villians by now - you need to dig up, stupid. I mean who or what the hell is Rick Flagg? Why do I care about Enchantress??
I could not agree more. There is NO audience connection to any of the characters who are not Batman related. Deadshot is the closest and he has strong ties to the Batman stories.
I find it extremely hard to understand how any WB studio executive would have signed off on how this was done. Having been a businessman for as long as I was I find it inconceivable that this has happened even once, let alone as many times as they have for WB. It is literally embarrassing.
So, how did the meeting go when they pitched the whole plan to compete with Marvel? Is there or was there ever a cohesive plan on how to do these films? I don’t know. If there was it has it was very poorly thought out.
Other then Batman and Superman other DC characters don't seem to be readily recognized by the public or liked. The Green "Arrow" and The Flash both have had boosts because of their TV shows and Wonder Woman is a Female Icon that transcends the genre but overall other DC characters don't resonate with people the way The Hulk, Spiderman, Ironman, The Fantastic Four, The X-men, Captain America, ..... do.
That's not intrinsic to the characters, though. Pre-MCU, the DC characters had a huge recognition advantage over Marvel's. Of Marvel's three most recognizable characters -- Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the Hulk -- Marvel Studios didn't have access to two, and the third was so difficult to make a good movie about that they stopped trying. No, Marvel Studios has been wildly successful in spite of their characters' recognition (or lack thereof), not because of it. Iron Man in particular resonates with people for the sole reason that they cast a great actor in a great movie. General pop culture didn't give a rip about Tony Stark before 2008. Given the right talent, DC-Warner could have done that with the Question or Mister Terrific or freaking Animal Man, to say nothing of what they could have done with their actual A-listers. It's been all about the level of quality and creative vision the two studios are putting into their films. This was DC's fight to lose, and boy did they lose it.
You are not kidding. This should be like fish in a barrel. Marvel has the formula down and they are not even hiding it. That formula is SO Blatantly simple it is ridiculous. I’m not saying that the execution of the formula is simple or the creation of the movie, but the overall strategy is mind boggling simple. FOX has done the same thing with Fantastic Four. There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four. It should have been simplicity itself to make a Great movie with those characters. These studios must be run by absolute idiots.
In the case of Ironman, I agree that Marvel did choose a Great actor and put him in a great movie when they made Ironman, but I do think the character was a great choice too. Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s. Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie. Many of the middle aged movie going public remember them from Saturday morning Marvel cartoons or after school cartoons from when they were children. It’s interesting that ALL of the characters from those first early Marvel cartoons, (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Spiderman, Black Panther, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Loki, Whiplash, Bucky, Red Skull, The mandarin, The Hulk, The Leader, Aim, Hydra, Shield, Nick Fury, Sif, the Warriors Three) have been in the current batch of Marvel movies with the exception of Namor the Submariner. I would be extremely eager to see Marvel to a Namor movie. Way more interested then I would be in an Aquaman movie.
If there's one word to describe this movie, it's sloppy.
The script was written in just 6 weeks and boy did it show. Editing and pacing were very bad, likely just as bad as in Batman v Superman, villain was very forgettable and lame, and I wasn't digging Leto's performance as the Joker. He felt too much of a try-hard in the role.
Suicide Squad is probably going to pull a Batman v Superman where it has a huge opening weekend but the bad reviews and bad word of mouth cause it to collapse at the box office. If that happens, DC is in huge trouble. I actually think they will pull the plug on their whole cinematic universe if the Justice League movie doesn't break $1 billion.
The trailer I saw had the same feel as the Suicide Squad clips I saw. Just this side of campy and amateurish. If they wrote the Suicide Squad script in 6 weeks that explains a lot. It also seems to be what they did with Justice League. They are in such a panic to play catch up with Marvel that they are half ass'ing the whole process. Rather then this childish, " We have a Cinematic Universe Too, look at us" approach They need to build off the Dark Knight example with quality stories about their fan favorite characters. I'm a Marvel Guy and have been since before many of you were born, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing DC characters but there has always seemed to me that DC characters lack a certain depth of connection with the public and with casual fans. Other then Batman and Superman other DC characters don't seem to be readily recognized by the public or liked. The Green "Arrow" and The Flash both have had boosts because of their TV shows and Wonder Woman is a Female Icon that transcends the genre but overall other DC characters don't resonate with people the way The Hulk, Spiderman, Ironman, The Fantastic Four, The X-men, Captain America, ..... do.
In fact, I think that Batman villains resonate with better recognition then most DC heroes do. The two best known and most anticipated charaters in the Suicide Squad movie are far and away Harley Quinn and Joker. Pretty much all the others are characters people hardly recognize or care about. I did not hear anyone posting that they could not wait to see Captain Boomerang, Rick Flagg, El Diablo or Enchantress. The Batman Villians, Joker, Harley Quinn and Killer Croc were the only characters that generated any interest at all, with the possible exception of Deadshot. Deadshot benefitted from being a very cool character and having the biggest star in the film play him.
Again, that is not what happened in this case.
It was criminal stupidity and a cover up.
This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. There is blame to go for everyone involved, Democrat and Republican in this case but those are not distinctions that have any real bearing here.
This tragedy was bipartisan and they everyone involved deserves blame and to pay for what their negligence, indifference and cover up did to the innocent people of Flint.
Not a lack of regulation.
All nations are influenced by racism and violence whether they choose to admit it or not. I like you Winston Churchill quote, I think it is very appropriate right now.
What similarities between the results of this election and the vote for Brexit in Great Britain can be seen?
Thank you. It is very good to be back and to see that so many of the members I hold in high regard, yourself included, are still here. I have not played Mafia since I left, but it is one of the main reasons I am back. I am very much looking forward to playing again.
What you say about Trumps tactics is true and If I gave the impression that I thought it was a good thing I will have to do a better job of expressing myself. There is a great deal of similarity in how he is going about his campaign with how Ronald Reagan ran his first presidential campaign. Both appealed directly to the people, almost bypassing the mainstream media to get their message out. However, both were very good at utilizing media to convey their messages as well. The main and obvious difference was that Reagan appealed to his audience in a positive manner, with hope and optimism where Trump is cloaking his campaign with a shroud of positivity but it is for the most part a campaign appealing to traits of “racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity.” I don’t agree with it but I think he will win with it. Unfortunately.
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
I wish I had as much faith in the American public as you seem to. Unfortunately, Walmart, QVC, Amazon and the Home Shopping Network are as successful as they are for a reason. Is it taking the low road?, yes. Is Trump above taking it if it means winning? Not on your life. He’ll do it in a New York minute. You are right about countries falling based on this decision. Countries have fallen, very recently, IE. the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Syria, as a result of traditional candidates being elected as well.
I was referring to the potential market waiting to be tapped by creating a movie that would appeal to younger audiances and pull in the older waiting comic fans as well.
This is a very interesting premise. It is a matter of perspective certainly. I look at the character that is Ironman and the fact that he is a rich white male does not register with me as anything negative. Stark is also a misogynistic, alcoholic narcissist, those traits do register as decidedly negative and they were downplayed, deliberately I think in the movies. I don't think even Disney could make the real Tony Stark likeable
I apologize for the delay in responding, it is difficult to reply in a timely manner while I’m at work.
So you won’t answer my question, ok. You are fixating on poles because you have found a graph on the Huffington Post site that you think proves me wrong, that’s ok too. You are still not addressing the actual point I was making regarding how Trump was portrayed and what his chances were. The fact that he was dismissed and downplayed as a candidate is undenial. Poles were only a small part of the overall media coverage dismissing and marginalizing his chances, and there were poles at that time, early on, showing Trump behind other candidates. Just as there are poles now that are being shown to support that he is behind.
I personally do not think that these recent poles are completely accurate. I have seen a report I am trying to verify right now regarding the veracity of recent poles. There is a claim that the poling sample group was not random but that it was intentionally selected with a higher proportion of Democratic respondents. In the example I saw approximately 1200 registered voters were contacted. Rather than a random selection of voters a group of 550 Republicans had been contacted and 650 Democrats. This obviously will generate false data. I was hoping to have had time today to research the validity of these reports. If this is actually the case it is an egregious violation of the public trust at the least.
Since the internet has so many independent sources and sites it is much easier to find fresh perspectives and independent thought.
That is one interpretation or it is also possible that the poling numbers were deliberately underreported in order to create the illusion that Trump had less support then he really does, it could also simply be a case of multiple, repeated failures to obtain a true random sample. Either way this type of public opinion manipulation has been a part of politics as long as there has been politics.
http://race42016.com/2012/04/26/polling-101-weighting-the-sample/
? Are you agreeing with me? Yes Romney complained of this type of media bias and he lost. Was the Media Bias a contributing factor to his losing, I think it is obvious the answer is yes. Was it the sole reason, no absolutely not. He ran a terrible campaign and was a terrible candidate.
First, I do not agree that he is “Hated among almost every group besides white male non-college graduates?” That is such a grossly broad and incorrect exaggeration that it doesn’t warrant a reply.
I’ve been very interested in finding out what poling numbers are being seem in areas not controlled by the mainstream and the numbers and summaries I have been able to find are interesting to say the least. There are few such summaries but they are interesting. The fact that the Democrats haven’t immediately posted Data and facts to discredit this is also telling. The response has been to ignore it as though it did not exist and that is usually an indication of them wanting people to take no notice if this in hopes it will not get legs in other outlets.
In social media sites Trump is ahead, in some cases handily so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk
“Published on Aug 6, 2016
Good afternoon, I’m still reporting on fake polls.
Hats off to Addison Riddleberger columns for assembling this social media data.
The 2016 elections will be the elections social scientists will look back on as the turning point year – the year where an analysis of social media will prove more predictive than paid polling.
Assuming that is a correct prediction, what does that mean for the future of the Trump-Clinton presidential race. All of these stats are as of Aug. 4th, 2016.
Let’s go to the data – Facebook Likes:
Trump: 10,174,358 – 65.4%
Clinton: 5,385,959 – 34.6%
----
Facebook live stream posts (latest):
Trump: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1,500,000 views = 1,653,167 total = 83.0%
Clinton: 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views = 332,000 total = 17.0%
*note: almost half of Clinton FB posts, the top comments are from Trump supporters. However, top comments on Trump’s page are hardcore Trump supporters only.
----
Twitter :
Trump: 10.6 million followers = 56.7%
Clinton: 8.1 million followers = 43.3%
-----
Youtube Live Stream (averages):
Trump: 30,000 live viewers per stream = 98.4%
Clinton: 500 live viewers per stream = 1.6%
-----
Instagram:
Trump: 2.2 million followers = 55.0%
Clinton: 1.8 million followers = 45.0%
-------
Reddit subscribers:
Trump: 197,696 = 71.3%
Clinton: 24,429 = 8.8%
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 = 19.9%
Bottom line: more than twice as many Reddit users think Clinton should be in jail as should become the next President of the United States.
I’m still reporting from Washington. Good day.”
This is a fascinating election year.
I think that I may have given the wrong impression of being a Trump supported. I’m a Libertarian and will be voting Libertarian in the election. I think this is a rare opportunity for a third party candidate to make real progress in breaking the death grip the Democrats and Republicans, along with their mouth pieces in the mainstream media, have on this country. I do however think Trump will win the Presidency. As the election draws near Republicans will begin to support Trump. Not all, and many may hold their noses while doing it, but they will see Trump as better then another Democrat and they will try to tap into the protectionist, anti-globalist sentiment that Trump has built his base on.
I’m not disputing your numbers and perhaps I did not make my point clear. This issue is not fazing Trump, while Hilary has a well-documented reputation for evading the truth and telling half truths many, many people will say out and out, lying. As we have seen each time The Donald says something that is false and someone calls him on it rolls off his back like water off a duck. Every time Hilary has a brain short circuit it is about something like whether or not the FBI investigation of her found she told the truth or not. And it does stick. Look at the numbers of Americans and even self-proclaimed Democrats that think perceive her as untrustworthy. Every single time she misspeaks, refuses to be forthcoming or lies she does herself damage and the Donald will take advantage of that.
That is the point I was trying to make.
You are exactly right about this. Trump is reshaping the Republican Party in a way that I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It remains to be seen if he will have the strength to resist pressure to conform once he wins the presidency.
This election will be an eye opener for many people into the pervasiveness of corruption in Washington and to what extent the mainstream media is an active participant in it. All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good. Everything he said about his poling and the eventual outcome was true. the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers, just as they will pump up Hillarie's numbers, down play evidence of her wrong doing and her mental health issues, but it will do no good.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing. That is how the other republican candidates got their asses handed to them and it is how he will beat Hillary. I think he is only now starting to open up on her. It's going to be very interesting the information Trump exposes about her. The fact that she can't seem to tell the truth even about minor things that are easily fact checked just does Trumps work for him.
Stay tuned kids. They will be talking about this presidential campaign for decades as a turning point in US politics.
I could not agree more. There is NO audience connection to any of the characters who are not Batman related. Deadshot is the closest and he has strong ties to the Batman stories.
I find it extremely hard to understand how any WB studio executive would have signed off on how this was done. Having been a businessman for as long as I was I find it inconceivable that this has happened even once, let alone as many times as they have for WB. It is literally embarrassing.
So, how did the meeting go when they pitched the whole plan to compete with Marvel? Is there or was there ever a cohesive plan on how to do these films? I don’t know. If there was it has it was very poorly thought out.
You are not kidding. This should be like fish in a barrel. Marvel has the formula down and they are not even hiding it. That formula is SO Blatantly simple it is ridiculous. I’m not saying that the execution of the formula is simple or the creation of the movie, but the overall strategy is mind boggling simple. FOX has done the same thing with Fantastic Four. There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four. It should have been simplicity itself to make a Great movie with those characters. These studios must be run by absolute idiots.
In the case of Ironman, I agree that Marvel did choose a Great actor and put him in a great movie when they made Ironman, but I do think the character was a great choice too. Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s. Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie. Many of the middle aged movie going public remember them from Saturday morning Marvel cartoons or after school cartoons from when they were children. It’s interesting that ALL of the characters from those first early Marvel cartoons, (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Spiderman, Black Panther, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Loki, Whiplash, Bucky, Red Skull, The mandarin, The Hulk, The Leader, Aim, Hydra, Shield, Nick Fury, Sif, the Warriors Three) have been in the current batch of Marvel movies with the exception of Namor the Submariner. I would be extremely eager to see Marvel to a Namor movie. Way more interested then I would be in an Aquaman movie.
The trailer I saw had the same feel as the Suicide Squad clips I saw. Just this side of campy and amateurish. If they wrote the Suicide Squad script in 6 weeks that explains a lot. It also seems to be what they did with Justice League. They are in such a panic to play catch up with Marvel that they are half ass'ing the whole process. Rather then this childish, " We have a Cinematic Universe Too, look at us" approach They need to build off the Dark Knight example with quality stories about their fan favorite characters. I'm a Marvel Guy and have been since before many of you were born, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing DC characters but there has always seemed to me that DC characters lack a certain depth of connection with the public and with casual fans. Other then Batman and Superman other DC characters don't seem to be readily recognized by the public or liked. The Green "Arrow" and The Flash both have had boosts because of their TV shows and Wonder Woman is a Female Icon that transcends the genre but overall other DC characters don't resonate with people the way The Hulk, Spiderman, Ironman, The Fantastic Four, The X-men, Captain America, ..... do.
In fact, I think that Batman villains resonate with better recognition then most DC heroes do. The two best known and most anticipated charaters in the Suicide Squad movie are far and away Harley Quinn and Joker. Pretty much all the others are characters people hardly recognize or care about. I did not hear anyone posting that they could not wait to see Captain Boomerang, Rick Flagg, El Diablo or Enchantress. The Batman Villians, Joker, Harley Quinn and Killer Croc were the only characters that generated any interest at all, with the possible exception of Deadshot. Deadshot benefitted from being a very cool character and having the biggest star in the film play him.