HuffPo stops covering Trump as politician

[Likely Voter]

HuffPo has made a change to their Trump coverage:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HuffPo may have a left lean but it is a huge site and I think they are trying to lead others in the media to stop pretending Trump is a real candidate. Will others follow?

I agree Trump's campaign is more of some celebrity vanity exercise than a real run to be president, but it cant be denied he is having an effect on the political world. He cant be ignored, just like Herman Cain couldn't be ignored. Certainly the other campaigns are now paying attention.

[Simfan34]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

[Marokai Backbeat]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

[Blair]

Lol Trump isnt a politician-look at his showboating in 2012. This allows the Huffpo to focus on the other lot

[BaconBacon96]

Yeah this is stupid. When he's leading the polls you can't say he is a sideshow.

[The Other Castro]

HuffPo is basically Buzzfeed at this point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is it that they're doing this to Trump?  I can guess, but I'd prefer they just say it.

[Famous Mortimer]

Why is it that they're doing this to Trump?  I can guess, but I'd prefer they just say it.

They did just say it. They don't consider him a serious person. Why do you "guess" they did it? No one knows but you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is it that they're doing this to Trump?  I can guess, but I'd prefer they just say it.

They did just say it. They don't consider him a serious person. Why do you "guess" they did it? No one knows but you.

He's leading in the polls, has a following, and can self-fund.  That's my definition of a serious candidate.  Whatever one thinks of George Wallace from 1964-76, he was a serious person and a serious candidate. 

HuffPo is doing this because they wish to edit out a serious discussion they don't want to deal with politically incorrect truths.  And the politically incorrect truths Trump raises beg other questions, such as "Who profits from NAFTA and CAFTA?", "How have we tracked the behavior of immigrant groups prior to 1965, and why did we change that?"  These issues have become sacred cows on the left and right, especially the Trade Agreements, which are the Holy Grail that MUST NOT BE MESSED WITH. 

Trump, moreso than Sanders, has the potential to unify the MIDDLE CLASS (what's left of it) against the perpetrators of Free Trade Agreements that have made it harder and harder for fewer and fewer people to enter the middle class.  Trump, with no excess of nuance, is wandering into this pool, and this touches the flow of political cash that the Clintons, Bushes, and Bush-Lite Wannabes (Rubio, Walker, et. al) all drink from.  And Trump self-funds; campaign money and ballot access isn't an issue.

So I really don't give a blast of flatulence about Trump's offensive statements.  I care that he challenges the GOP power structure on "free trade" and keeps the discussion alive.  If he's not a "serious" candidate, keeping the discussion alive will give the "serious" candidates opportunity to carry the "I'm serious about illegal immigration!" and "Free Trade is Killing the Middle Class" banners that need carrying in this campaign.  Otherwise, there is no real choice between HRC and any GOP candidate nominated, except on social issues, which the GOP talks about, but does nothing about, lest those avenues of cash and volunteers dry up. 

[Penelope]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

No, Donald Trump is silly, attention-seeking click-bait.

I really don't understand any backlash to this decision. I think it's fairly obvious that Trump is a cynical opportunist who is courting the ultra-conservatives in the party by telling them what they want to hear. Why should HuffPo NOT put Trump's racially charged, insincere far-right rhetoric in the entertainment section?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He is now a fringe candidate like fellow reform partier Pat Buchanan. Who holds similar positions as Trump do with same constituencies.

He's only option now, is run a fringe third party campaign, and inflict damage to Jeb, not Clinton.

[The Other Castro]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

No, Donald Trump is silly, attention-seeking click-bait.

I really don't understand any backlash to this decision. I think it's fairly obvious that Trump is a cynical opportunist who is courting the ultra-conservatives in the party by telling them what they want to hear. Why should HuffPo NOT put Trump's racially charged, insincere far-right rhetoric in the entertainment section?

Because then they would have to put the 15 other candidates below him into that category as well.

[Higgs]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

No, Donald Trump is silly, attention-seeking click-bait.

I really don't understand any backlash to this decision. I think it's fairly obvious that Trump is a cynical opportunist who is courting the ultra-conservatives in the party by telling them what they want to hear. Why should HuffPo NOT put Trump's racially charged, insincere far-right rhetoric in the entertainment section?

Because he's leading in the polls.

[Pyro]

I doubt anyone who reads HuffPo would vote for Trump.
But yes, I agree that this is a silly decision.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.

No, Donald Trump is silly, attention-seeking click-bait.

I really don't understand any backlash to this decision. I think it's fairly obvious that Trump is a cynical opportunist who is courting the ultra-conservatives in the party by telling them what they want to hear. Why should HuffPo NOT put Trump's racially charged, insincere far-right rhetoric in the entertainment section?

Because he's leading in the polls.

There was a time in 1972 when George Wallace was leading the pack for the Democratic nomination.  If the Huffington Post were around then, should it have pretended Wallace wasn't a political candidate and report him as a news item, along with, say, David Duke?

I don't think so.  A racist George Wallace may be, but he did not make racist rants in either of his Presidential campaigns.  He DID, however, speak up on issues that much of Middle America found important, including Public Safety, ending the Vietnam War honorably, and how much of a Welfare State should we be.  When a man is running for President AND he has a significant piece of the polling pie, is it sound journalistic practice to decide that this man "just doesn't deserve attention"?  Because if it does, then we really are a Mediocracy.  The Media really DOES have a veto on a candidacy they don't like.

[Famous Mortimer]

While Trump is obviously terrible, I don't like the idea that "this is the only candidate who doesn't talk in focus group tested soundbites so we're not going to cover him".

[All Along The Watchtower]

Sounds about right.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Hopefully they'll start posting three Amy Schumer articles everyday instead of two.

[Leinad]

Ridiculous. Trump is a serious enough candidate, even if he's spewing mularkey, and he's also the most fun thing that has happened in politics for a long time.

This is a billionaire populist, a multiple-time divorcee gaining traction with conservatives, a politically incorrect person running for probably the most important political office on earth. Not to mention that his name recognition makes every article you post about him automatically a traffic magnet. Everyone should be covering Trump, or they're missing out.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

"If I pretend it's not there, maybe it will just go away".

[Fuzzy Bear]

"If I pretend it's not there, maybe it will just go away".

Trump isn't going to go away.  He's a billionaire, he's a narcissist (as, in fact, many pols are), and he's up in the polls (sort of; it's a crowded field and his ceiling is debatable).  He's a player in the game.

And why should he go away?  Because he's not someone else's idea of a Presidential candidate?  Because he's not "qualified"?  We just elected a guy President, then re-elected him, who's primary governmental experience was that of a STATE legislator; he had less than 3 years service in the US Senate when he threw his hat in the ring.  Trump's a major businessman; he's managed large organizations, and while this experience isn't perfectly analogous to being Chief Executive of the US, neither is being a Senator, a General, or even a Governor of a state.  There's no job quite like being POTUS.  Trump's more "qualified" for the job than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in terms of actual experience for the job.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Was Trump ever a "politician"?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

"If I pretend it's not there, maybe it will just go away".

Trump isn't going to go away.  He's a billionaire, he's a narcissist (as, in fact, many pols are), and he's up in the polls (sort of; it's a crowded field and his ceiling is debatable).  He's a player in the game.

And why should he go away?  Because he's not someone else's idea of a Presidential candidate?  Because he's not "qualified"?  We just elected a guy President, then re-elected him, who's primary governmental experience was that of a STATE legislator; he had less than 3 years service in the US Senate when he threw his hat in the ring.  Trump's a major businessman; he's managed large organizations, and while this experience isn't perfectly analogous to being Chief Executive of the US, neither is being a Senator, a General, or even a Governor of a state.  There's no job quite like being POTUS.  Trump's more "qualified" for the job than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in terms of actual experience for the job.

I don't disagree. I was putting into words the attitudes of both the left-media and the GOP establishment.