The Coward In Chief - On Trump skipping the debate, some history, some relevance; both now and into the general election

So Donald Trump announced he won't do the debate. I have to comment on this, of Trump now running for Coward-In-Chief. So Trump had been threatening to not do debates before (CNBC and CNN debates). Now the debate is on Fox News, the most friendly network to Republicans and conservatives. So Trump threatens the 'left-leaning' CNBC and 'centrist' CNN networks but won't do the Republican's 'own' network. Thats .. peculiar.

Trump complained about Fox News first debate, that their anchor Megyn Kelly had been unfairly attacking Trump. Note, Megyn Kelly QUOTED Trump words at him. This is EXACTLY the job of a journalist and TOTALLY valid for debates. What have you said in the past, what do you say about these things. Its even MORE relevant if the issue is about a given voter group, that seems to be offended and already at the time Trump had a huge gender gap. A gender gap that the Republican party had identified as a one of the several voter demographic problems in Mitt Romney's loss to Obama in 2012. Totally completely valid attack, but Trump having the thin skin that he has, then followed with weeks of attacks on Megyn Kelly including that 'she had blood coming out of her, whatever' comment (which many interpreted that Trump was talking about her menstruation cycle, and was angry because of that). Now, leading up to this debate, for weeks, Trump had been lobbying to get Megyn Kelly removed from the panel of moderators. Fox News correctly informed Trump that the candidates do not get to pick their moderators. This escallated and Trump kept attacking Kelly as weak and a light-weight as a journalist (while of course we have Trump on videotape earlier a few years ago, calling her a great debate moderator).

So Trump started again with his threats that he won't do the debate. Then he went onto Twitter to ask his followers should he skip the debate. As this was going on, Fox needled him with a joke that the Ayatollah and Putin would be mean to Trump. And then Trump decided to take his ball and go home. He isn't debating.

First, this is incredibly self-serving for the front-runner who has recently STARTED to attack a rival he had not attacked before. Trump promised he won't start the attacks, he said he will only respond if others attack him. And Ted Cruz remained nice to Trump so they didn't attack each other for months. But then when Ted Cruz passed him in some polls, suddenly Trump started to attack Cruz. When he was asked about it in the last debate, Trump even admitted, yeah, he did start the attacks but it was because Cruz was ahead of him in the polls. A stunning admission. But now, only a few days before Iowa votes, Trump suddenly pulls out. This is totally unfair, because he is the front-runner (who has attacked his rivals and who has the largest percentage of lies ever measured of any US politician, a massive 76% of his statements are untrue by Politifact. Even Dick Cheney only got 59% of his statements as lies) and Trump has literally attacked each of his rivals. They should be allowed to challenge Trump on his attacks, and he should be man enough to stand there, and take it, and respond.

This is also remarkably unfair to voters of Iowa. Its their last chance to have seen the full field in the same room, and to see contrasts and see candidates challenge each other or respond to each other. Now the front-runner is thumbing his nose to this tradition. Voters of New Hampshire will get another chance (assuming Trump comes back to his senses and rejoins the debates) but for voters of Iowa, this is really unfair. Screwing them. They have seen the candidates cris-cross their state, to talk on TV and radio and endorsed by media and political leaders. Now one candidate decides to take the Iowa voters for granted and ignore the debate. To turn down the valuable invitation to the prime time debate, where others struggle to make the KIDS table debate. Trump is making a mockery of the debate process and thus is very literally mocking the voters of Iowa.

For Trump there is on the first view, a big upside gain. He being the front-runner and having run the nastiest campaign in history (so far, and we've only barely started) Trump knew he would be the target of various attacks. Attacks that several candidates would have 'held' for their ideal moment, this very debate. The last debate before Iowa votes. (I said they should have attacked earlier, idiots!). Trump is not a natural debater but he's been getting better at it. Still he is not in the class of Cruz or Rubio or Christie (or Fiorina from the kids table). And Trump is lazy, he doesn't prepare well, a debate takes a lot of work. He'd much rather arrange a stump speech with some 'surprise guests' (like no doubt Sarah Palin again) where he can forbid journalists from asking any questions and even kick out journalists he doesn't like. But all rivals have to do DOUBLE the debate-prep. One version where Trump IS in the room, and the other, of what to do if Trump is not in the room (and then the fighting will be probably more amongst those present, ie more of Cruz vs Rubio, etc)

If this goes unpunished, it becomes instantly the favorite gambit by all who lead in the polls. To pull out at the last moment. The rival has to do useless prep, and the leader in the polls is not touched either by moderators, nor by the rival(s) in the debate. Nice. This cannot be allowed to stand. So lets look a bit at history.

REAGAN MCAIN

Its not the first time that a candidate has threatened to not debate. Ronald Reagan played this very same gambit, in the position Trump is in right now. In 1980, Reagan was the front-runner for the Republican nomination (it was his second attempt) and he was well ahead in the polls for Iowa. So he decided not to do the TV debate (against Daddy Bush, his rival). Well, Bush ridiculed Reagan for being a coward, and the voters of Iowa rewarded Daddy Bush with the victory, humiliating Reagan. Reagan of course then returned to debate and went onto beat Bush in the debate (Reagan was a far better debater than Bush so this was a stupid tactic to begin with) and Reagan won the next vote in New Hampshire, but Bush kept the race running long, and it was a bloody nasty race, which the Reagan campaign later admitted, it was a huge blunder to let Bush win that Iowa vote, so skipping the debate gave Bush a lot of life, that then prolonged the race, and forced Reagan to pick Bush as his VP to fix the rift that had formed in the party. Reagan despised Bush. So we do have the history of the voters of Iowa rejecting this gambit.

Then we have John McCain in 2008. His campaign was struggling all along against once-in-a-century supercandidate Barack Obama. McCain had planned to select former Democrat and then Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, a very 'maverick' move by a Republican, but then decided that he needed a bigger gamble, and picked Sarah Palin. And the first weeks were excellent with Sarah, giving his campaign a big boost. Then came the TV interviews (I read all the newspapers). So McCain decided to suspend his campaign and go fix the economy (haha, doing nothing in those meetings, he was only one Senator out of 100). But McCain seriously suggested skipping the scheduled debate with Obama. Obama was by far the better debater, he was going to have none of that and started to ridicule McCain about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. McCain had to relent and did the debate.

BRING IN THE TAPE

So we have some history of this. There have been actually several cases of candidates skipping debates but those were almost always backmarker candidates who were close to quitting their campaigns already. Like Michelle Bachmann in 2008. But you know what? We have an opinion of this gambit. Called skipping debates cowardice, yes he did. Who was that? You knew it, of course its our Donald J Trump. Saying that skipping a debate was a lack of 'courage' and that she was being 'greatly disloyal' and that the voters were rejecting this. Nice. This is THE videotape to destroy Trump as the tough guy, the Brave One who takes on Putin and the Iranians and Chinese and Mexicans. He's afraid of Megyn Kelly? He says he won't debate, and then play videotape where he says those who skip debates lack courage. Splice in various Republican politicians who were NOT running against Trump, who say he should do the debate, like say Rudy Giuliani and Bill O'Reilly. For Hillary's team, this may be their favorite anti-Trump ad to make out of all the ample amounts of topics and videotape, because it is so pure 'The Daily Show' style comedy piece like Jon Stewart would run. And it hits at his core premise, that he is so tough and brave. Yet he's afraid of petite Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. Plus its even more cause to talk about the original question she asked Trump, which reminds women voters how much Trump is an asshole.

BRING OUT THE VETS

So then its Trump's war veterans gambit. What a calculated political trick, so he is so 'above' the fray and takes the 'high road' of running a TV show to help veterans instead of helping Fox News get money selling ads on their debate. How noble of Trump. So, first off. He said he'd be helping the wounded veterans. So when Politico asked, the Wounded Warriors project said they had not even heard from Trump. Yet Trump had been blabbing about his love of veterans on TV for a day by then. Nice. Then the Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans of America said that they will not be used as a political prop and will not accept money that Trump raises with this stunt. Then worst.. the Vote Vets group said that Trump should not hide behind veterans being afraid to face Megyn Kelly. OUCH.

So if Trump picked ANY possible topic on which to hide from the Fox TV debate, 'veterans' is truly a bad, nasty, smelly one. It reminds all vets and all who care about them, about his comments about John McCain. Then it reminds all about his silly stunt on top of a Battleship where he said he was raising funds for vets - when his invitation was from a fraudster veterans group (of only one person) that had lost its tax-exempt status. Ouch. And now to make this issue about vets, it brings only more of the worst un-endorsements he could hope for. He should have picked some other 'patriotic' topic like go do the event at an American flag factory or something. Not veterans.

AND THE TV AD

So this is Trump. So this is gonna be more disgusting than we could have imagined. Mr 'I so love veterans' indeed. Trump wrote to the New York State Assembly in 1991 asking WOUNDED VETERANS who were LICENCED street vendors, to be removed. Yes, He is a duchebag. This was no isolated incident. Trump wrote to the NY Mayor in 2004 asking veterans to be kicked off the public street in front of his precious tower. He is despicable pond scum, which is of course a slur on pond scum but nonetheless, what else can I say. YOU, Mr Trump are slime. But again, consider the TV ad that Hillary's team is drooling to run on this. She is the strongest foreign policy candidate on either side of the table to begin with. Now a weakness in Trump, that he is ignorant of even basics of US defense like its nuclear weapons triad. And then this 'I am the most militaristic person' ( - what does that even mean? - ) and yes then that he loves the veterans. But he's worked for YEARS to try to get LICENCED street dealers who are WOUNDED VETERANS to be blocked from 'his' street... I have no words for how low this is. But if we get to enjoy the parody of a campaign that is Trump and he becomes the Republican nominee, we will get these ads for sure.

Now, a smart Republican rival would run variations of those ads, and point out for example about the veterans that poor Mr Trump has given literally HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars to Democrats but only a pittance to his 'beloved' veterans.

NO UPSIDE MASSIVE DOWNSIDE

Now the tactical evaluation of this gambit. Trump had led the race for all but one week since he announced in the summer, to December. Then in December, Ted Cruz was ahead in a couple of polls, but pulled clearly ahead .. in Iowa. Now, after Trump's brilliant attack on "he's a Canadian!" - Trump the prototypical 'birther' (gained his popularity on the conspiracy-wing of the Republican party by accusing Obama of not being born in the USA, hence 'birth' ie 'birther') so Trump's core supporters will howl at gosh, Ted Cruz indeed WAS born in Calgary Canada and he has held a Canadian passport and had dual citizenship.. So in the last few weeks, Trump regained the lead in Iowa, a lead according to Real Clear Politics is 6.5 points today. RCP also tells us, that in the last 2 elections, when Iowa was 4 days out, the leader in polling of the race (in both cases Romney) ended up within exactly 3 points in the election of what the polls said (one up 3 points once down 3 points). In both cases, however, Romney ended up second. But the point is, Iowa does get pretty close to settled, known, this close to voting and the leader is tested for a long while and those votes are pretty well 'banked'. Trump has to win this election. He is ahead by 6.5 points (Cruz second). So no matter how much his supporters might love this alternate TV show with veterans (and 'special guests' no doubt Sarah Palin and idiot Sheriff of Arizona, Arpaio) - Trump cannot now 'gain' in Iowa. Whether he wins by 2 points or 12 points, he was already ahead. This gambit cannot give Trump 'more than a victory' in Iowa. And he was ALSO ahead in the polling in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the two states to vote next, so even there, this debate boycott cannot deliver a victory for him. There is literally no 'upside' benefit to his campaign.

The downside of this mad gamble is huge. First off, all of this rivals get a 'free pass' to attack Trump - while he cannot use hits quick wits - and memorized put-downs - to hit back! This is as dumb as the superior debater Reagan telling Bush he won't show up. Trump will be attacked ANYHOW. But now that he is not there, the attacks can be more vicious but FAR WORSE, Trump won't get the chance to immediately answer. Now is EXACTLY the time to hit Trump on anything that could play well in Iowa from Trump's marriages and unfaithfulness to his numerous bankruptcies to his bogus 'university' etc. Trump could protest loudly if those were brought up if he was on the stage, such as about the bankruptcies that they weren't 'personal' bankruptcies but 'acceptable' business practices, but now he's going to be attacked ANYWAY. But the attacks will be worse - exactly because the rivals KNOW he can't immediately respond. And then the rivals will be 'competing' on who can hit Trump the hardest, who gets the best laughs from the room. This is like waving a red flag at a bull. In this case a STARVING angry bull which has been teased for months by that Trumpomonster. A very very bad move. And as I wrote, if any of those candidates cannot now, with 2 days of time to prepare, come to the debate with DEVASTATING attacks on Trump that will be on the highlight reels of not just this debate, but of Trump's career, where the wheels came off his campaign - if his rivals cannot use this open opportunity to skewer Trump, then they don't deserve to be President. They should quit right after the debate. Hold a press conference and say, I'm sorry, I don't have what it takes.

But the downside is FAR worse than that. Where is Trump's alternate TV? What channel is running it? He arrogantly thought he' have the networks bidding to host his infomercial. No, thats not how it works. So he is in obscurity while his rivals get all the attention. Not smart. But what is his event going to 'announce'? Where is his 'news'. The networks will have their TV cameras there, but the only thing they are now going to look for is the rotten tomatoes being thrown or the whistling or the protesters. They've heard his stunt speech of pure boasting, they won't cover any of that. At least if he was on the debate, he could advance his position to a large TV audience. Now he's in obscurity. But again, it is worse for him. Every attack that 'lands' will now be on videotape - and journalists interviewing Trump will now bring up that stuff. So the next days towards Iowa and NH voting - will be governed by the attacks launched by his rivals - with videotape eagerly played by the TV news channels (with a lot of glee) then asking Trump to respond (to be 'fair'). So he has to endure the attacks ANYWAY but rather than have them over in 2 hours, he has to take them again, and again, and again, on all the networks. Except that now, the journalists have had MUCH time to prepare for Trump's evasions, so his 'smart alec' quick responses won't play as well. And this time - he won't have the AUDIENCE to join him in laughing at some put-down of a rival. This is BY FAR the worse way to deal with the attacks, if they come. The attacks will be nastier. There will be more of them. He can't immediately interrupt or respond and try to end that line of attack. He can't answer to 'kill the issue' either. But all the attacks will play on TV for days to come, and he will have to answer them all, in far less favorable conditions than on the debate stage - without a live audience to play with. And the journalists will have had plenty of time to pick WHICH attack to reference, and do their RESEARCH about that issue to have nasty follow-ups as well. This is dumb dumb dumb campaign stategy. When Reagan tried this against Daddy Bush in 1980, it wasn't 10 rivals all gunning for him (ok, 9 real rivals and Dr Carson). And there's a reason they called George HW Bush a wimp. He was on debates and attacks like.. well, Jeb Bush is his father's son. So now Trump will have to take the best that Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina can come up with. And given enough time and prep, its even possible John Kasich can create a reasonable attack. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum are great at delivering memorable attacks with funny punchlines from the kids table. This is like Reagan times one hundred haha... Again, every one of these has felt the wrath of Trump. Every one has been told by their campaign managers, they have to attack at some point. Now is the ultimate perfect time to attack because Trump cannot respond.

WHAT IF HE LOSES

So the downside. It is ENORMOUS. If Trump doesn't win Iowa, he will be seen to have thrown it away. He will have done a massive blunder that no sensible smart clever leader would do. His loss could be for any number of reasons, maybe the roads were slippery and it was raining. Maybe there was a mini-surge for one candidate for some obscure reason that just tipped the balance. Maybe the turnout is just too low, to allow Ted Cruz to steal the victory. Regardless, if without this stupid stunt Trump was cruising to win Iowa, NH and SC - no Republican candidate in modern history has won the first TWO of the three states, this would be a totally unstoppable train for the nomination if Trump wins all three - now if he loses Iowa, he will have thrown victory away. He would have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Even if he went on to win all remaining states, the race will be more difficult because of this gift to his rivals. And if Trump does lose Iowa, his precious image of 'always winning' will be tarnished. Even more so that it would be by such an obvious and blatant ERROR. And error in judgement, and error due to his ego.

In the long run, as Trump is still the front-runner to win the nomination regardless, he leads in most polls, and I am confident he will never skip another debate haha - this stunt will come back to haunt Trump in the general election. It will play far more badly in the general election when Hillary can point to her 11 hour marathon grilling by political RIVALS in the Benghazi hearings or say Obama's incredible trip to go spend a day with the Republican caucus of Congress, etc. Some are Presidential and are willing to face the music, others are children who run away if someone said something nasty about them. Oh, little baby, did nasty Megyn Kelly hurt your feelings, oh, why don't you cry a bit...

I do hope Iowa voters punish Trump and give Ted Cruz the victory. I would love some enterprising Iowa voters to have infiltrated his event and do the stuff that he hates like the whistling and the tomatoes. Maybe someone would throw a shoe haha. Now in a perfect world, the reaction to Trump drops his support to under 20% in Iowa and a surprise candidate is the late surge like Marco Rubio maybe, who pips Trump and takes second place, dropping Trump to third. That would be epic. And then, that the massive media blame game, how bad judgement it was by Trump to throw a sure thing away, might just anger him enough, that Trump would feel they all are ganging up on him, that he could decide to run as an Independent. And lose the general election with 15% of the vote and be expelled from Republican politics and be known as the sad angry old grumpy hater who lost everything. Obviously that reputation should also totally devastate what remains of the Trump brand value, so various buildings would remove his name... that would be so poetic justice for this scumbag.

So he decided he won't do the debate. Fine. But Trump has said before, that those who do that are cowards. And he now tries to wrap himself behind the screen of wounded veterans. Gosh, what a hypocrite, he was previously actively trying to ban unemployed wounded veterans from making a few bucks as LICENCED street dealers. There is a very special level in hell for this sleazebag. I only hope that Trump lives a very long life because after his epic political loss this year, he will no longer enjoy living the life he has been blessed with. May his kids all choose to change their names away from Trump. 

Comments

[tz]

Now the sharks - the people they had lined up specifically to attack trump on immigration and muslims will not be shooting at Cruz mainly, and a few others and now have much more time to destroy Trump's competition. The moderators are also on a search and destroy mission. The Dump Trump gauntlet has become the Bruise Cruz gauntlet.

If they ask about the missing person, it will seem petty and stupid since Trump won't be there to defend himself (but will sweep and control the narrative on all the talk shows the next morning - he will have several "closing summaries" which will not be countered). Are they going to ask the kiddie table about Cruz?

The nasty, snarky Ayotollah and Putin press release is being universally criticized by everyone except Fox news and it was authorized by Megyn's boss. They aren't serious.

Trump does not need to debate and it isn't Cowardice, no more than if I demanded you fly at your own expense here to the USA and debate me live on YouTube an if you don't you're the coward. (Maybe you are or aren't but I doubt anyone thinks that by not flying here is proof either way).

Here's the upside. He will be seen helping the Veterans. Did you not hear of Evita Peron? And her help lottery? Cruz has said he will contribute - but only if Trump will do a one on one debate Saturday - even now people are asking Cruz "If you have an extra $1.5M, why not just give it?". "I'm going to be the grinch who ruins Christmas if Trump won't debate me!"

Second, Any support that Trump loses has to go somewhere. I don't think Iowa has an undecided or uncommitted. If Trump loses 5% but still beats Cruz because the other ten get 0.5% more, it will still be a victory.

It would only matter if Trump's support went to Cruz. or a single candidate, sufficient to make them #1 and Trump #2. Very unlikely.

I've already mentioned just the most recent targeting of Cruz and why I expect him to lose as much if not more than Trump, Trump 40, Cruz 30 would be better than Trump 25, Cruz 10.

Are you familiar with Glenn Beck? You've not mentioned him. He "endorsed" Cruz. Podcasts are on Soundcloud of this week's shows - they are worth a listen if you really want to understand Cruz' base.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/ - you really need to listen to him and watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bOGNnWdNoE - watch that video and tell me you want Cruz to be the next President.
https://soundcloud.com/glennbeck - the best parts are not the biographical portions but the "endorsement"s.

Cruz is #2 in Iowa, Rubio a distant #3, and the rest are below the noise floor. The rest can't get enough to be #1, so if it isn't Trump, it must be Cruz. (Please post an analysis of Cruz v.s. your prediction for #1 in Iowa if you disagree).

In order for Cruz to be #1, about 30% of the voters who are currently committed to Trump have to shift to him, or 50% need to "stay home". That is not going to happen.

This is a pro-Trump site, but it documents why they aren't going to go to Cruz: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/27/heres-why-ted-cruz-has-already-lost-iowa-glenn-beck-lying-version/

In short, with all the attacks, mud, and calumny all readied by Fox News, and Trump not being available, it will be fired at Cruz who will DROP several percent.

Most Trump supporters (do not assume rationality on their part) look at his rejecting walking into an obvious ambush as "leadership". Helping Veterans at the same time is likely to increase his share.

See if I'm right - that in the aftermath, Trump gains 5% and Cruz loses 5%.

If Scott Walker in the adjacent state of Wisconsin was still in the race, he would probably be able to pull it off. But he's not there, only Cruz is, and maybe Rubio, but Rubio is rejected by conservatives.

"I would love some enterprising Iowa voters to have infiltrated his event and do the stuff that he hates like the whistling and the tomatoes." - and in that same spirit I hope Trump has some hacker supporters that dox you, deface this site, and do DDoS attacks only because you would "hate it". This ought to be beneath you, suggesting disruption and vandalism. Is that what passes for argument in your culture? The desire for petty disruption, misconduct, and vandalism?

But speaking of harm and disruption and corruption, Ted Cruz is from "Big-Oil" Texas, and wants to end Ethanol subsidies, of which Iowa is one of the biggest beneficiaries. Crony welfare queens? Yes, but Trump says he likes Ethanol and won't bankrupt a large portion of the economy, Cruz has said he would to the point the longest serving Governor - of Iowa - has come out against Cruz. Not for Trump or anyone else, just against Cruz. Hope all you want that Iowans will vote for someone that will throw them out of work.

The problem with Cruz' citizenship is a bit worse than that. First when he was born, he was a Canadian citizen an Canada at the time did NOT allow dual citizenship. Second, Normally as soon as the child is born, they go to the consulate and fill in US citizenship papers - that wasn't done. Until 15 months ago Ted Cruz had Canadian Citizenship. His candidacy is clouded. I think he would prevail, but you might notice stock goes down until it is resolved (did Samsung stay flat when Apple sued them for infringement?)

Something else you apparently don't know is after dissing Ron Paul and his supporters, the National Republican Committee changed the rules so that no candidate can be placed in nomination unless they get a majority (51%, not just a plurality) of delegates from eight states. It doesn't matter if Cruz gets 7, he won't be eligible. If Rubio, Carson, Bush, etc. all get 7 and Trump is the only one with more than 8, Trump will be the only one any delegate can vote for on the first ballot regardless of his popular support.

Trump will win Iowa, I'm guessing 45%, then similarly in New Hampshire (different #2), and then sweep. These won't be over the magic 51%, but by 3rd week in March he should have 8 states and no other candidate will.

It is irrelevant if I like Trump or not (I don't). But I've been watching this and listened to the predictions of Trump fizzling out. He has been monotonically increasing (sorry, look at the graphs - Motorola might want to say Apple is going to fall or lose but it won't happen either). Carson peaked and leaked, and Cruz is on the leaking side of the peak and that would be enough to nix it if nothing else were happening.

Hate and wishful thinking is no substitute for analysis.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi tz

Great comments and I wanted to reply to you before the debate started so I have to be very quick. I will return with a more broad response later. Please note I just responded to our readers Catriona and Stephen in the thread about 'Debate Review' where some of the points you brought up, were discussed.

On 'if they ask about the missing person' - I'm not sure if the moderators need to do that, I am 100% certain most of the candidates will hit Trump voluntarily. They will find an excuse out of some question to do that. Carson probably won't (he might) and Chris might not (probably will). Rest will. I'll be really surprised if any of the rest will not seek at least one chance to hit their prepared attack on Trump. But we'll see in just a few moments in the debate.

The press release, I agree that was snarky. Note, it was goaded by Trump who for several WEEKS has been needling Megyn Kelly and who had gone to Twitter to ask his followers whether he should boycott the debate. So the childish games were started by Trump, not Fox. I applaud Fox for staying firmly by their anchor, and I am by no means a fan of Fox in any way shape or form. I do have to admit, the first Fox debate this season had the best questions and best moderation of any of the 6 debates so far. Again. I HATE Fox. Its the only channel in addition to Russia Today that I will not watch when I travel around the world, even if it was the only English-language news channel on that hotel TV system. I hate Fox.

Your analogy of you demanding me to fly to you to debate is not the situation with Trump. Trump was invited to debate. He qualified. It is an honor to be given two hours of television time to debate the issues of an election and there are only a handful of those opportunities per election. It is for the voters. The only time that candidates share the same stage at the same time and talk about the same issue and area allowed to challenge each others' positions. It is an honorable tradition. If a candidate chooses not to debate it is spitting in the eyes of the electorate. It is setting one's self above the voters and beyond honest discussion. Avoiding questions and not standing up for one's own positions and words. Sure, a politician can try this. Many have tried in the past, mostly only in lower-level votes or if the candidate was close to dead in the Presidential election. The only time a front-runner did this was Reagan in 1980 before Iowa and his big lead was eliminated and George HW Bush (ie Bush 1) stole that election on a tight vote. The voters - VOTERS - punished Reagan. This is trifling with voters, condescending arrogant behavior. I hope Iowa teaches Trump the same lesson they did to Reagan. If Trump does win, regardless of by how much or little, then this becomes standard operating procedure by all politicians, to suddenly pull out of debates - and do hatchet attack jobs with lies, with that very ploy in mind. I do hope sincerely this never becomes acceptable in elections.

To make your analogy valid, then we should be on some race or contest where our presence was needed. So lets say, its a job interview. And we are both invited. And suddenly I decide not to bother to show up. THEN the parallel is similar to what Trump is doing. Not if you demand that I come there to debate with you. Thats not what the TV debates are. They are always optional and in past some politicians have decided to be the cowards and not show up. And it usually has cost them (not always, in local politics but mostly this is a doomed tactic).

Helping the veterans? tz. I have a policy here on this blog that we don't do repeat answers. You need to read my original posting. The veterans bullshit is half of my blog. You can't make silly claims here in your response that ignore what I wrote. You have to first address what is in the blog. Please read it, then return here with an ammended reply about veterans that illustrates you read my blog article. Then we can talk veterans. Its a total lose-lose-lose-lose issue for Trump. Going horribly badly already and getting far worse as the hours wear on.

On the support, where would it go. Great point. I dealt with that in the responses I just wrote so pls go read those (I will return here too with it after the debate)

About Glenn Beck, sure I know who he is and occaasionally mention him in these US election related blog articles. You didn't need to bring him up, to convince me that Ted Cruz would be a horrible person for President. Principled, yes, but totally a disaster as President and probably would be impeached in his first term. He is literally hated by everybody including all in his own party. I know all this. It is utterly irrelevant when we are discussing Trump, on whether Trump made a massive tactical mistake. If you fear Cruz as the nominee - you should be furious that Trump is gambling with a sure thing. REAGAN - the most beloved Republican, was heavily leading in Iowa polling in 1980 when he tried this gambit. His rival was not a smooth-talker Mario Rubio or a fiery speaker like Chris Christie or a genuine religulous pastor like Mike Huckabee or a master debater like Ted Cruz. Reagan, the great Communicator, was facing Wimp Bush, yes Daddy Bush, ie Bush 1. A totally inept public speaker (exactly like Jeb). And THAT Bush defeated Reagan in the Iowa caucuses after Reagan decided to coast on his massive polling lead and skip the debate before Iowa voted. This is a GAMBLE. Trump is a good speaker, he is no Reagan. And now its not just Jeb (wimpy clueless verbally-challenged man) but a whole slew of the Republican party's BEST speakers who all are hungry to be the 'dragon-slayer' who took down evil Trump who was afraid of Megyn Kelly and insulting to Iowa voters. Yeah. If you think there is no backlash to Trump, you're dreaming. And if you fear Cruz, you should be alarmed that Trump is GAMBLING with his lead. A clever gambler spots opportunities where the upside is huge and the downside is slight. An ADDICTED gambler will go in, when the upside is low and the downside is huge. This is the worst place to be gambling. And the only time it was tried, turned out a disaster for Reagan no less.

Now on your math. You are wrong. Real Clear Politics average for Iowa has Trump at 33% and Cruz is 6.5% behind. If Trump loses one tenth of his support (3 points) and if those all go to Cruz, the race is apart by 0.5%. So its not the math you said that Trump needs to lose a third. No. If Trump loses one in 8, the race is tied and if Trump loses one in 7 and all go to Cruz, its already Cruz's victory. And latest polling of second choices say that the second choice for most Trump voters is Cruz. He won't get all, but he will get the most. If Trump is down 5 points and Cruz only takes 2 of those, its Cruz to the winner's circle and Trump's silly gamble will go down in history as one of those things politicians should never try again.

That being said, its a close race and Cruz was on a downward trajectory himself with the Canadian ploy. Its possible Trump drops by 10 points and STILL WINS in Iowa, if Cruz also drops by say 4 points more (and Rubio doesn't pick it all up). And if Trump wins in Iowa, then thats the only thing that matters, this ploy will be blessed as a great thing and in future every election will feature candidates who pull out of debates at the last moment. I would hate to see that become the norm.

As to silly Trump supporters seeing this as strength, yeah. I agree. They love this (not all) and yes, they see this as evidence Trump can't be bought, he is independent, he is strong, he stands up against 'mainstream media' and all evil plots... gullible fools.

As to tomatoes and whistles, yes, that was mean-spirited and I stick to that. Trump lost all respect long ago with his White Supremacist racist sexist xenophobic fascist rhetoric. I also am calling frequently for Dick Cheney to be tried for war crimes and I applauded the use of the Arabic insult of throwing a shoe, when Bush the Lesser was subjected to that haha. I am not advocating actual violence - Trump was suggesting some of his protesters should be beaten up, and he sent his thug bodyguard to go beat up that one Hispanic journalist etc. I think I can safely stay here on the side of protesting if the worst Trump would get is some tomato red into his hair.

Now Cruz and oil. This is not news to readers of my blog. I was one of the first to include the role of the donor Billionaires and identified them per candidate when I did my 'form book'. But thanks. As I said, Cruz is not my fave candidate either. That I attack Trump for a bad tactical move does not mean I would be endorsing Cruz.

And why would I not know about the 8 states rule? I never discussed that in the blog? But thanks, yes we do know that. Incidentially, this was the first blog to do a delegate count and the related 'path to victory' of ANY published political page anywhere, and Karl Rove reached almost identical conclusions on his article on similar lines published a few weeks after mine.. but thanks for helping our readers remember that aspect.

Now on the Trump hate. You have clearly not been reading THIS blog. Don't group me with those others you found doing bad analysis. I had similar views as all other pundits of Trump's early moves but this was one of the very first sources anywhere to calculate a PLAUSIBLE path for Trump's victory, and then - that his path had become the second easiest (when Cruz had the easiest path to most delegates). At that time NOBODY was saying Trump had a strong chance to win, they only thought he had a very distant or no chance. So yeah, please read this blog and my analysis before you condemn me as another hater. But as to Trump personally, I thought he would be a moderate. I did not foresee he was so much the racist and a despicable person, nor that he would run the most deceitful campaign in history (76% lies vs even Cheney only lies 59% of the time). So its safe to say that I detest him. But that does not prevent me from seeing the obvious - its highly likely that Trump wins the nomination (even if he were to lose in Iowa).

Now I gotta go watch a debate. I will return with more detailed response to you.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Stephen Reed]

(repost) I watched only the Trump event and missed the Fox News Debate. I did watch the Fox and CNN analysis afterwards and visited Drudge to vote. The current vote count on the straw (non-scientific) online poll is 214,004.

Trump 53.42%,

Cruz 22.17%,

Rubio 8.85%,

Paul with 8.65%

All others below 2%

If this online poll remains stable, then one of my above pre-debate predictions has been realized, namely that Donald Trump wins the post-debate online straw polls.

The Trump event was much less showmanship than I expected from a charity event. It was arranged much like a stump speech event and his remarks were mostly from his stump talking points. The audience was raucous and enthusiastic, especially when protesters were being ejected. However the amount of money transferred, in front of the crowd, to Trump's charity foundation was amazing. Trump himself gave $1 million, and introduced another $1 million donor.

I agree that the current Iowa poll average is a good benchmark to look at. But I would look closely at the highly reputed Des Moines Register Poll due to be released this weekend. The previous two results from this poll showed a down trend for Cruz and an up trend for Trump. If these trends continue, I would conclude that Trump's debate gambit succeeded regardless of the caucus night result. Microsoft's Iowa election model gives Trump 40%.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi All

I just did my debate review. Lets talk about the debate there. We can do the Trump talk here..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Tomi
Trevor Noah has a field day on the daily show with Trump running away from the debate.
http://www.thewrap.com/daily-show-trevor-noah-donald-trump-genius-for-skipping-gop-fox-news-debate-video/

http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/trevor-noah-donald-trump-african-dictator/1365266/

[exram]

Skipping the debate doesn't seem to have hurt his poll numbers at all.

Trump remains unstumped.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

To all in the thread

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert did a brilliant piece of a fake debate of Trump vs Trump moderated by Stephen. Very funny (and far too short, I hope - and expect - him to return to this theme many more times). So enjoy the video - but remember, this same idea will be used in attack ads by Hillary in the Autumn and it will be devastating (if Trump ends up being the nominee)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

(to Trump)

Hi Stephen, Winter, exram

Stephen - thanks for reposting that to the differnt threads. I think it best fits now in the new blog about the debate review, so I’ll answer you there, we can do the discussion about the actual debate there, and do the discussion about Trump’s boycott here.

Winter - haha great ones. Thanks for the links. Yeah this is massive fodder for late night comics. Stephen Colbert I think did the best so far (although Saturday Night Live might do their take). Trump has to have gotten a lot of negative feedback as he’s already pledged to return to the next debate. I’m sure his internal signals suggest it was a boneheaded move and we’ll see it also in the Iowa results. If Trump had any feedback that his counter-programming was a smart thing to do, he’d be doing it also for NH.

exram - no, there are no polls out yet that asked voters their opinion after Trump announced his boycott. So there is not yet any measured data. We will be getting at least one more poll to report Iowa now on Saturday and quite possibly a whole slew of polls. Then we will have the first view. Note, most of those polls may run an ‘overlapping’ polling period where part of the interviews were before and part after Trump’s announcement. And the real answer will be on Monday when Iowa votes. If Trump gets 33% he saw no damage from this stunt. If Trump polls above 33% he actually gained from this and you should be seeing him do it more. If Trump polls below 33% then the lower it is, the more this stunt cost Trump.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi tz

Now, the part that was triggered by your comment, is thoughts of a possible play. Lets assume there is a secret deal between Trump & Cruz, doesn't matter what or when, but that the deal is, Trump will clear the field for Cruz, and then step aside (Trump will not want to be VP but he's a real estate Billionaire, he could make out like a bandit if he gets Cruz elected). Imagine for a moment that such a deal exists. They negotiated this early in the race, when Cruz & Trump met, and as they've kept a non-aggression pact going for 4 months. Then - lets pretend further - that this recent spat between them is ALSO just for show, its part of the plot.

Now lets see how this gambit plays out. When Reagan tried this, he lost his lead in Iowa and Daddy Bush won the Iowa caucuses. So lets say Trump and Cruz had plotted this scenario out back in July and its INTENDED to go this way. What happens if indeed Trump loses Iowa on Monday, Cruz wins it (or even Rubio perhaps) and Trump who polled at 33% finishes with say.. 20% or so. What would conservative and Republican experts and pundits say? They will scream - Trump is a fool, he threw a good thing away, he is incompetent to run a campaign, he will lose the general election. THEN.. remember this is now a conspiracy plot lets say this too is part of the plan, so Trump - who has been threatening to run as an Independent, now says - because everybody is 'ganging up against him' Trump will pull out and quit the race.

First - how much would this have cost Trump? Nothing. Nothing compared to his rivals and a pittance for all the attention he received.

Second - look how softly Ted Cruz attacked Trump in the debate. Almost not at all, very modest. Did Trump supporters feel it was nasty and unmerited, no, it was actually pretty mild, compared to others before and compared to Jeb Bush in that debate. And now. Lets say Trump gets all that nasty attention of being a loser after coming in second (or even third) in Iowa and Trump sulks and pretends thats the reason he quits the race. Where will the Trump voters go?

Trump voters would flock to... Cruz. They have no other 'home' now. And Trump + Cruz support means Cruz becomes the unstoppable front-runner with about 50% of the Republican voter support. And Trump would endorse Cruz (of course) and Trump would say - he honors his obligation to not run as an Independent - which gives him a pass from all Republican and conservative pundits and experts which maintains Trump's visibility with the media.

So then the question would be, what will Trump gain out of this strategy? That would need almost certainly a dual-bet deal, where Trump has a deal with not just Ted Cruz but also Bill Clinton, so if either Cruz or Hillary become President, Trump has something massive to gain. As I wrote earlier in considering his motivations, Trump might want to become the planet's first Trillionaire and if he could play king-maker for the election, then he is smart enough to turn that into his personal mission. And he could probably make it seem like the election had almost nothing to do with it, rather it was all how brilliant Trump is as a real estate tycoon (which actually depends very much on political contacts).

Well, the proof is in the pudding, this is a wild conspiracy theory and for this variation of the Clinton-Trump conspiracy to work out, with this Cruz-angle, it needs Trump to pull out of the race within days or latest weeks, so that Cruz can collect those voters who were allying with Trump. The game to single out and target Megyn Kelly and insist she can't be the moderator, and all the times Trump threatened to not debate with CNN and CNBC, would support the theory that skipping this Fox debate in January was all part of Trump's grand nepharious world-domination plan all along...

I know you didn't suggest this in your comment but I wanted to tell you, it was your comment that triggered this variation in my mind, that the debate boycott gambit could be part of a Cruz-Trump (and possibly even Bill Clinton) conspiracy... Cheers!

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi all

I didn't know Reuters had its 'polling extractor' tool (very clever) which lets you apply filters to their 5-day tracking poll. Its not about Iowa, its a national poll. But.. it allows us to see what was change on the day Trump said he's not participating - did the daily tracker (5 day average) move - and who GAINED (interesting) - plus also... it lets us see immediate aftermath of the debate - who gained & who lost.

So. What happened? I think Trump's rush to say he's participating in the next debate is partly due to this kind of data. The poll on his day he announced collapsed 7 points. In a 5 day moving average. He went from 41% to 34%. That means Trump's support had collapsed to 6% in that one day !!! Truly massive and dumb move indeed. Now, what about his veteran's event? That has (unfortunately for me, hoping Trump will be immensely spanked by this blunder) now restored half of the points lost, in the next 2 days.

Then who GAINED ? Most others were relatively flat, one point up or so but one candidate stole big support on that day - Dr Ben Carson... (yeah, Trump voters are dumb as a bag of hammers, how can this be?). Also - I told you its an interactive tool... we can dig into it, and its clear to see that Trump's Republican supporters (nationwide) have recovered from that stunt, but his INDEPENDENT supporters have NOT. Hence his recovery half-way. The stunt definitely hurt him. Did it hurt enough to lose Iowa, remains to be seen on Monday. I would guess that these results being national, the effect is more pronounced in the states about to vote - and taken most personally specifically in Iowa voting next, with no more debates before they vote.

Then on what happened after the debate - the next day's results? Clear big drop to Cruz (bad sign for him trying to beat a slumping Trump) and modest upward ticks to Rubio (as expected) and ... Dr Carson !!! (weird) but bigger gain to Trump (this is part of the above analysis of Trump's collapse and quick partial recovery)

This tool became my instant favorite internet thing of all time haha... Now we can have a kind of instant thermometer on whats going on and how individual events can impact the election. Gosh I love the internet... here's the link for you all

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160101-20160129/type/day

Enjoy !!!

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Following up on that..

Gosh thats a cool tool. So digging a bit more. So Republicans have forgiven the Donald, but Independents have gone away. He has lost and not recovered 4 points of support among Independents due to that boycott stunt. And where did they go in the past 4 days? Not to anyone you'd think of immediately, not on the Republican side. And yeah, I thought so too. But no, didn't go to Bernie either. They went to Hillary !!! Hillary picked up 5 points of Independent support in the past 4 days. So if Hillary just squeaks past Bernie with 2% or less in difference, then Hillary can thank Trump's boycott stunt for shifting independent-minded Trump-leaning voters to sour on his childish behavior, and vote for Hillary instead. THAT my dear readers, says incredibly strongly that Trump will be utterly crushed in a general election against Hillary. A HUGE OUCH indeed.

I did not see that coming. I thought they'd stay mostly among Republicans and some would go to Bernie. But no, Bernie is flat, Hillary picked up the pieces. Gosh, this is such a cool tool.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi all

Ok, I have nailed my colors to the mast. I wanted to get my forecast out before Iowa starts voting. I predict Trump wins nomination with 53% of the delegates, Cruz comes second and Rubio third. New blog, lets talk about the predictions there. And if you're inclinded to pick a winner and what % they get of the delegates, and if the winner clinches before the nomination, when, lets do those forecasts all in that thread.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

To all in this thread

CNN has given the exit poll numbers, Trump's support collapsed after his debate boycott and he only got 14% of the Iowa support after that day. Clearly a colossal failure and it partly explains why Trump was so quick to say he will attend the next debate.

So Trump went from 33% up to the day before the debate, to 14% after. This is epic, catastrophic and HUGE strategy failure, a self-induced wound, by a gambling-addicted rogue candidate who has no reason being anywhere near the nuclear launch codes...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

And one more note

We heard it now from the horse's mouth. Trump said skipping the debate 'probably cost him' the win in Iowa. This from a man who never apologizes, who says he's never made a mistake, is as close to a religious confession of a catastrophic cockup. So that thing is at least settled, even Trump knows this was a big blunder and won't try it again.

The issue comes now, can the rivals FINALLY wake up, smell the blood in the water, understand that Trump is the only candidate whose support is so broad, everybody else could pick support if he falls, and that Trump needs to be attacked by many, hard and often. If sanity prevails, they will all attack Trump relentlessly in the next debate, make him really pay for missing out on the last chance. But also, they will be attacking Rubio, as the front-runner of the moderate wing. And smug in his first victory, Cruz might well once again not want to attack Trump and only attack Rubio.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

To all in the thread

Gosh I had forgotten this meme. I used the Hitler Bunker scene parody generator, to use the Hitler Rants meme to further mock Trump. So Hitler is Trump's election coach. Trump is promising to name many famous US landmarks in honor of his mentor, like the White House to be renamed Hitler House, Niagara Falls the Hitler Falls, when...

Its the newest blog article

Enjoy

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[NiconCollege]

Pearson BTEC Level 5 Higher National Diploma in Business, Accounting & Finance (HND-BAF) offers a unique opportunity to specialize within the scope of the specialist units available. HND-BAF equips you for careers in Business, Accounting & Finance as well as the opportunity to ‘top up’ to the BA (Honours) Degree Program in the leading universities of UK, USA & Australia.
The uniqueness of this program is that it is the only qualification that gives you the opportunity to get to know about Business, Accounting & Finance and increases your opportunities for better employability. Also, it gives you the clear idea for your future specialization.
In addition to developing a set of key skills valued by employers, the course includes the key business areas of accounting and finance, as well as the operational and planning associated with business decision making. A distinctive feature of the course is that it provides an international focus.
Within this international context, students develop their abilities as business practitioners through a range of work-related learning and assessment opportunities.
Successful students have the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the labour market, by offering potential employers a highly relevant skill set and contemporary knowledge base.

[NiconCollege]

HND IN COMPUTING AND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Higher National Diploma (HND) in Computing and Systems Development is a widely-recognised and highly-valued IT qualification, developing a range of skills that are necessary to pursue a career in IT and its allied fields and providing a solid platform for further study in the subject area.
In addition to developing a set of key skills valued by employers, the course includes the key IT areas of Web, Software Engineering, Multimedia, Information Security as well as e-Commerce and IT Management. A distinctive feature of the course is that it provides an international and an industry oriented focus.
Within this international context, students develop their abilities as IT Professional through a range of work-related learning and assessment opportunities.
Successful students have the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the IT industry, by offering potential employers a highly relevant skill set and contemporary knowledge base.

[NiconCollege]

HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA IN BUSINESS

Higher National Diploma (HND) in Business is a widely-recognised and highly-valued business qualification, developing a range of skills that are necessary to pursue a career in business and providing a solid platform for further study in the subject area.
In addition to developing a set of key skills valued by employers, the course includes the key business areas of marketing, human resource management, and finance, as well as the operational and planning associated with business decision making. A distinctive feature of the course is that it provides an international focus.
Within this international context, students develop their abilities as business practitioners through a range of work-related learning and assessment opportunities.
Successful students have the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the labour market, by offering potential employers a highly relevant skill set and contemporary knowledge base.

[NiconCollege]

Higher National Diploma in Business

Higher National Diploma (HND) in Business is a widely-recognised and highly-valued business qualification, developing a range of skills that are necessary to pursue a career in business and providing a solid platform for further study in the subject area.
In addition to developing a set of key skills valued by employers, the course includes the key business areas of marketing, human resource management, and finance, as well as the operational and planning associated with business decision making. A distinctive feature of the course is that it provides an international focus.
Within this international context, students develop their abilities as business practitioners through a range of work-related learning and assessment opportunities.
Successful students have the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the labour market, by offering potential employers a highly relevant skill set and contemporary knowledge base.

[NiconCollege]

International English Language Testing System – IELTS

Introduction

The International English Language Testing System a.k.a. IELTS, is an international standardised test of English language proficiency for non-native English language speakers. It is jointly managed by the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia and Cambridge English Language Assessment. IELTS is one of the major English-language tests in the world.

IELTS Academic and IELTS General Training are designed to cover the full range of ability from non-user to expert user. The Academic version is for test takers who want to study at tertiary level in an English-speaking country or seek professional registration. The General Training version is for test takers who want to work, train, study at a secondary school or migrate to an English-speaking country.

The difference between the Academic and General Training versions is the content, context and purpose of the tasks. All other features, such as timing allocation, length of written responses and reporting of scores, are the same.

Course Benefits

IELTS is the world’s most popular English language test for higher education and global migration.
IELTS is approved by UKVI and UKBA for both Student Visas and Settlement Visas.
IELTS can be helpful if you want to study in the USA. More than 3,300 institutions in the US accepts students with IELTS.
NICON offers access to a wide range of IELTS preparation and study resources to help you prepare for IELTS. The trainers offering IELTS prep classes are trained by British Council Master Trainers.
Who should attend?

Anyone and everyone who is a non-native speaker of English and has a desire to study or settle in either UK, USA or Australia etc.

Course Delivery

NICON offering IELTS preparatory classes online through highly qualified and experienced IELTS trainers who have been trained by British Council Master Trainers for IELTS Preparations.