I doubt that FOX would have discussed the specific questions, or the method of delivery, with the candidates before hand. The candidates would have had a general idea of the topics (defense/financial/taxes/etc).
I seriously doubt many people watched on C-SPAN though I wished I’d realized that. Flipping to CNN was mostly annoying commentary.
It’s too soon to tell if Trump’s gambit changed any hearts and minds. In a few days Trump managed to put together a fund raiser that collected pledges of some $6 million dollars. Not too shabby. Could any of the other candidates, from either party, had accomplished the same thing, in the same amount of time?
CNN did manage to find the leader of some veterans group who said he would refuse a donation??? I thought the idea of these groups was to actually help veterans? I chuckled when a Trump spokesperson later said that if there were groups that didn’t want the money, they would make sure that they didn’t get a check.
It certainly wasn’t advertised very well. It was my wife who suggested I try C-SPAN (probably to keep me from flipping channels more often than I normally do. 
)
Isn’t it just shocking that some people who work their asses off to help veterans might not want to accept money from a sideshow political stunt?
Money is money, it has no politics. People donated money to help the veterans. The leader of one group decided that he wouldn’t accept dirty political money. I guess that the veterans he was trying to help could have used a couple of hundred thousand, or a million, extra bucks. Maybe not?
Trump is spreading out that money across the gamut of Veteran charities, afaik so I doubt any particular one is getting hundreds of thousands.
Different Vet organizations might have specific goals that don’t line up with Trump’s positions. They could be seen as hypocritical or as supporting Trump’s positions by accepting the money. Trump has had no problem bringing up his past generosity when someone crosses him later. In other words, money does have politics. So I am sure you now understand why an organization might turn down his money.
Well, $5 million of that came from just 5 donors (including Trump) so really not so hard to do when you have billionaire friends to help you buy good will.
Huh. That’s something he learned from the Celebrity Apprentice.
That’ why I stopped watching Celebrity Apprentice. The original Apprentice was about tasks like setting up a lemonade stand and selling the most lemonade. Celebrity Apprentice became about which team had the most rich celebrity friends who they could call to make a donation. It angered me to watch the stupid celebrities getting into fights about how to run some alleged business when they should have been saying “screw this nonsense, get on the phones and call your rich friends.”
To be fair, that was generally just the last challenge. Still lame, but they mostly had real projects during the series.
He’s “selling out” everywhere he goes. Evereywhere he speaks, masses turn out, overcrowded venues, overflow rooms, turn aways.
No other candidate has this.
He represents the silent majority of this country who don’t spend their time watching political pundits on TV or talking about politics on the interwebz.
He’s not representing a majority, silent or otherwise. I have tried to explain this to my Bernie-loving friends as well: huge crowds at events mean next to nothing. You know what else gets huge crowds? NFL games. But if you took all the attendance at all games combined for this past season, and pretended every game featured a unique crowd (no season ticket holders, no repeat customers, which is obviously not the case), you still wouldn’t have enough people combined to equal Ross Perot’s vote totals in 1992, when he won not a single state.
The number of people that represent a majority of voters in a general election in a presidential year is so massive that it is just beyond the ability of the human brain to conceive in any direct way. Thus people are vulnerable to overgeneralizing from what appear to be huge crowds coming out to see a candidate.
Except where he doesn’t, and then throws a hissy fit when someone posts a photo of a mostly empty auditorium.
Please. I’m old enough to remember Nixon saying that in 1968. But that was nearly a half-century ago, and that Great Silent Majority of white folks just isn’t so Great anymore. And Trump damn sure won’t get many minority votes.
(post shortened)
It not just the large numbers of voters attending Bernie and Trump rallies, you also have to consider the small number of voters attending Hillary rallies. Rally turn out, like polls, indicate a trend. A large number of attendees indicates a positive trend while small numbers indicate a negative trend.
What trend? Rand Paul drew huge numbers of people to rallies and never amounted to a hill of beans in presidential primaries.
Chuck Ross, reporter for the Daily Caller, sounds jealous that Trump said he was going to raise money for Veteran’s groups and a few days later Trump raised some 6 million dollars. It’s my guess that neither Chuck Ross, Hillary, Cruz, Bernie, or any of the other candidates could accomplish the same thing.
A trend is just a trend, it doesn’t mean someone is first past the post.
Simple, really. People who support Rand Paul support him with enthusiasm, they will attend rallies. And even if they represent only 1% of the population, if they all show up at a rally, its big.
People who sorta kinda support Hillary, like the default position for a “prevent” defense, aren’t all that fired up about it. That’s looking like a pretty big number, including people who will enthusiastically attend a Bernie rally, but if it comes to crunch time and they must choose, they will choose between “not that great” and “EVIL!!”. Thus, maybe eight or nine out of ten people who end up voting for Hillary would not likely attend a rally for her.
Mile wide and an inch deep beats ten feet deep and a square foot.
The only numbers that count are the numbers that decide who will be the elected candidates from the party conventions, and then the only numbers that matter will be the final tally of the U.S. Electoral College.
You assume that Bernie supporters will choose between “not that great” and “EVIL!!”. That doesn’t say too much for the Democrat’s choices but will “not that great” be enough incentive for Democrats and independents to vote for the candidate selected at their convention?
I think you misunderstood. It says even less about the Republican’s choices. The choice being described as between “not that great” and “EVIL!!” is the general election. “EVIL!!” is the Republican nominee, so most Bernie and/or Hillary supporters will very likely choose the one that is not “EVIL!!”.