He didn't.  He walked right into her trap.  Now she's more famous than she's ever been and he's been exposed as a grown man who behaves like a child.  He got played like a harmonica and probably doesn't even understand that.  This makes him look like he has the acuity of a dead cat.

Elements in the cable political media are salivating over the chance to have Trump throw grade-school insults at them and he's walking toward it like a blind bull entering a slaughterhouse.

doesn't change the fact that she is trash.. he just openly spoke the truth.

Bush wasn't the brightest chip off the block either.

So... there is this thing called the executive function of the brain. The purpose of the executive function is to prevent us from doing stupid things that seem appealing. Like, if you're about to fuck a prostitute with syphilis, the executive function is like "well she looks like she knows her way around a guy's junk, but I probably don't want a venereal disease ". The executive function helps you make better decisions like "that bacon wrapped donut looks delicious, but I probably shouldn't eat it" or "I enjoy a lack of air while pleasuring myself, but auto-erotic asphyxiation is probably stupid."

Which is why I have to face palm when people look at a candidate like Palin or Trump and say "Oh he speaks his mind! We should vote for him!" Because I don't want a president who says the first thing that comes to their mind. I don't want a president who makes decisions based on their guts.

What I want is a president who has the self awareness to reflect on their impulse and figure out whether it's a good idea. For example, a president who realizes that threatening the moderator of a debate makes him look like a petty person who can't tolerate the criticism that will come with the office, or someone who realizes that a menstruation joke probably isn't the best way to defend this action. Or someone who makes sure they have the data to back themselves up when they make statements about how Mexico is sending all of their criminals to the US.

Basically, I want someone who realizes the limitations of their impulses, reflects thoughtfully upon them, and when necessary, draw upon additional sources to confirm or deny their impulses. We need someone capable of making good decisions, not someone who stomps their feet when he doesn't get his way. In other words, I want an executive with a strong executive function.

If the media can't take it, then don't dish it out. Keep doing your thing Trump

The reason why Trump has been successful is not simply because he speaks his mind, but because most politicians around him look like puppets. They talk like an advertising group, playing to the base and pandering and using empty words. While Trump can be rash and ridiculous, he almost always sounds like the things he is saying belong to him, not some PR group with focus testing data. However, he is still ridiculous and seems like he would struggle to play anything politically with any tact whatsoever.

What I've seen from Bernie Sanders looks similarly like a guy who is authentic and adheres to his beliefs, although his ideas are less radical and he seems to better be able to handle things without flying off the handle...

I'd hesitate to call Trump succcessful.  In the early days of election season, it's pretty easy for a particularly flamboyant candidate to gather a large crowd.  I'd actually say the same, to a lesser extent, for Sanders.  Candidates that hit a niche hard are successful early on, but when more of the masses start to engage, things change.  I like Sanders so I hope his success is continued.  I have less hope for Trump.

To an extent though, isn't pandering kind of a good thing?  Elected officials are supposed to represent the interests of the people they govern.  Obviously you have to use information the general public does not have to filter some ideas out, but in a perfect world, shouldn't a candidate's views represent the people more than they represent himself?

Very true, but when you start pandering on the macro level, to very specific segments of the a particular party, it always causes problems down the road when you have to pander to the wider audience.  

I really don't like trump, never have. How is somebody whose catchphrase is "you're fired". Actually leading the polls for republicans? Boggles my mind...

Pandering has a bunch of flaws in a political situation. For one, it makes the candidate more unpredictable once they are actually elected. At that point, there is little benefit to pandering to the voters and we just don't know how they will act when they are given the chance to actually make decisions. Second, it makes all the candidates seem basically the same, which takes focus away from the things they say and more towards how they say them. Third, it creates a situation in which the extremes thrive, because a moderate who makes non-partisan decisions will not draw the support of the far right or far left. Fourth, in pandering, you don't represent the general public so much as a vocal extreme minority, because the general public tends to vote for the most publicised canditate wheras the minority not only helps to spread the candidate but they often vote for the candidate who is more typical, so while the average person may be more moderate, pandering pushes candidates towards more extremes...