US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough before. I was talking about a damaged Clinton presidency, not her as a candidate, although I do believe her numbers could be worse than they are now at the end of the campaign. 

You're right, there isn't any new material, outside of the email "scandal" and the Wall St. transcripts. But Trump can sell the garbage in a new way that might make it stick. I'm guessing his approach to attacking HRC will be to try and destroy her credibility. And while I agree that it will probably backfire on him because he will go too far, there's still reason to believe that it will have a lasting negative effect on her.

And lastly, on Starr, I just believe that the Clinton/Trump debates will garner insane ratings with more people to pay attention. And that could have a stronger impact than anything Starr might of done.

I think you overestimate Trump. The fact is, if Clinton is going to face a more dangerous opponent, that goes double for Trump. He's going to need more than a Twitter account, a rude nickname and some off-colour remarks to cope with Clinton, who is (let's face it) a much more formidable opponent than any of the panoply the Republican party put together.

But I agree that even a successful campaign against Trump may damage Clinton. But then, the fact is, Clinton as President will be hammered non-stop by the Republican establishment from day one anyway. So in the end, I doubt it'll make much difference. She'll be getting these attacks not just from Trump in the campaign, but for the whole four and a bit years. She'll have to deal with it.

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

I don't see how the above is true at all. Starr's investigation exonerated the Clintons in regard to Vince Foster's death, for example, which was a finding some right-wing conservatives refused to believe. Tywin believes that Trump will attack Hillary Clinton more in the style of Scaife, who refused to accept that finding. Why wouldn't that be saying something that Starr did not originally say?

That'd be covered by the 'if he personally didn't say it' bit. But in any case, allegations proved false already are, again, not likely to win over wavering voters: only to reinforce the views of those who'd vote Trump anyway. That doesn't do much harm to Clinton. Nor does Trump making stuff up.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think you overestimate Trump. The fact is, if Clinton is going to face a more dangerous opponent, that goes double for Trump. He's going to need more than a Twitter account, a rude nickname and some off-colour remarks to cope with Clinton, who is (let's face it) a much more formidable opponent than any of the panoply the Republican party put together.

But I agree that even a successful campaign against Trump may damage Clinton. But then, the fact is, Clinton as President will be hammered non-stop by the Republican establishment from day one anyway. So in the end, I doubt it'll make much difference. She'll be getting these attacks not just from Trump in the campaign, but for the whole four and a bit years. She'll have to deal with it.

I'd rather be guilty of overestimating Trump than underestimating him. I've worked on a number of campaigns, and one thing you do is prepare for every possibility. 

 

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

That'd be covered by the 'if he personally didn't say it' bit. But in any case, allegations proved false already are, again, not likely to win over wavering voters: only to reinforce the views of those who'd vote Trump anyway. That doesn't do much harm to Clinton. Nor does Trump making stuff up.

 

I'm not worried that Trump will win over voters. I fear he may create an environment that causes a lot of people to stay home, and that hurts Hillary more than him. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

For me, his intentions will show post election.  Will he turn his campaigning powers to focus on getting Left wing candidates elected at the state and local level?  If not, it tells me that the campaign was all about him, and at that point I really could care dick all about him.  

Little Bern Blue come blow your horn, the sheep are in the meadow the cow's in the corn. Where are the millenials who look after the sheep? they're under the weedstack fast asleep.

[Ormond]

45 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think you overestimate Trump. The fact is, if Clinton is going to face a more dangerous opponent, that goes double for Trump. He's going to need more than a Twitter account, a rude nickname and some off-colour remarks to cope with Clinton, who is (let's face it) a much more formidable opponent than any of the panoply the Republican party put together.

But I agree that even a successful campaign against Trump may damage Clinton. But then, the fact is, Clinton as President will be hammered non-stop by the Republican establishment from day one anyway. So in the end, I doubt it'll make much difference. She'll be getting these attacks not just from Trump in the campaign, but for the whole four and a bit years. She'll have to deal with it.

That'd be covered by the 'if he personally didn't say it' bit. But in any case, allegations proved false already are, again, not likely to win over wavering voters: only to reinforce the views of those who'd vote Trump anyway. That doesn't do much harm to Clinton. Nor does Trump making stuff up.

 

As Tywin just pointed out, the main issue isn't "winning over wavering voters", it's demoralizing people who would otherwise vote for Clinton into not voting at all. And voters who are too young to even remember who Ken Starr was (which would include most voters under age 30) are among the ones Clinton would have the hardest time motivating to get out and vote already. They'd be the ones most likely to be affected by Trump. 

[Maester Drew]

Democrats:

• Hillary:  Way too hawkish.
• Bernie:  I'll be writing in his name this November!

Republicans:

• Trump:  A tiny part of me still hopes that he'll announce that his candidacy was an elaborate prank.
• Cruz:  His positions are revolting.
• Kasich:  Why the hell is he still in the race?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Probably not. Considering the breaking news that Sanders is cutting "hundreds" of staff throughout the states that have already voted. First of all, there's the fact that this is a terrible idea because it means he'll have no campaign infrastructure in place if he did somehow become the nominee. But to the larger point, if he was serious about advancing the progressive movement down-ballot, he'd be keeping those staff in place in an Organizing for America-style organization.

Instead, he's breaking it all down.

This is crazy.

First of all, Sanders has no shot of becoming the Democratic nominee for president. Literally, no shot. So the idea that it's a "terrible idea" to start breaking down his campaign infrastructure because of something that will never happen makes no sense.

Second, there's just no reason for Sanders to try to start an "Organizing for America-style organization." It doesn't really even make sense. Organizing for America was a project of the Democratic National Committee. It's was staffed by the DNC and basically run by the DNC and it's goal was to support first Obama and then Democrats in the midterm, and then sort-of Obama again. Sanders just doesn't have the organizational infrastructure to run this kind of a project (let alone the funding, all of which is tied to his presidential campaign). What "advancing the progressive movement down-ballot" really means in this context is threatening to primary Democrats who are perceived as insufficiently progressive. Not only would this never really work as a national project - there's no point in trying to primary less-progressive Democrats in conservative states - which would only guarantee more Republicans get elected - but it would also be political suicide for Sanders as he would really be working against the DNC.  

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Not only is he breaking it down, he's doing so in order to win California.

Which...makes no sense at all from any perspective other than maximize his complete crap chances to win.

That can't be the reason, since the only reason he's even in the race at all is to move Hilary to the right.

MIRITE, Tywin?

[Squab]

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

It's not just the conservatives.

The fear of the dystopian future/apocalypse if Trump wins is exactly the logic being used by people to call Bernie out for not dropping out of the race.  And exactly the narrative that has so many vapid, spoiled  hollywood types threatening to move to canada if they don't get their way.

Why are rich celebrities always threatening to move to Canada rather than Mexico?  If they are really about helping people and not authoritarianism, wouldn't their money do more good in Mexico?

Also, does this sway peoples votes at all? And if so, which way?

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Squab said:

Why are rich celebrities always threatening to move to Canada rather than Mexico?  If they are really about helping people and not authoritarianism, wouldn't their money do more good in Mexico?

Also, does this sway peoples votes at all? And if so, which way?

Canada is the liberal elite's 'Galts Gulch'.

Except of course that they rarely follow through, sadly.

[Bonesy]

Half of them are from Canada to begin with.

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough before. I was talking about a damaged Clinton presidency, not her as a candidate, although I do believe her numbers could be worse than they are now at the end of the campaign. 

You're right, there isn't any new material, outside of the email "scandal" and the Wall St. transcripts. But Trump can sell the garbage in a new way that might make it stick. I'm guessing his approach to attacking HRC will be to try and destroy her credibility. And while I agree that it will probably backfire on him because he will go too far, there's still reason to believe that it will have a lasting negative effect on her.

And lastly, on Starr, I just believe that the Clinton/Trump debates will garner insane ratings with more people to pay attention. And that could have a stronger impact than anything Starr might of done.

I have a hard time believing that twenty-year-old scandals that didn't hurt Clinton in the 90s will significantly affect her now. I don't have data on this, but it just strikes me as highly unlikely. But maybe millenials are just lusting to revisit dusty old witch-hunts they've heard about only in history class.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Squab said:

Why are rich celebrities always threatening to move to Canada rather than Mexico?  If they are really about helping people and not authoritarianism, wouldn't their money do more good in Mexico?

Also, does this sway peoples votes at all? And if so, which way?

Canada is the move of choice because  we have ever so much fewer  idiots with guns. 

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Yea all of these """""""celebs"""""""" wanting to move to Canada, should just move to mexico, since they want those illegal mexicans in America. So much hypocrisy from leftists. 

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is crazy.

First of all, Sanders has no shot of becoming the Democratic nominee for president. Literally, no shot. So the idea that it's a "terrible idea" to start breaking down his campaign infrastructure because of something that will never happen makes no sense.

Second, there's just no reason for Sanders to try to start an "Organizing for America-style organization." It doesn't really even make sense. Organizing for America was a project of the Democratic National Committee. It's was staffed by the DNC and basically run by the DNC and it's goal was to support first Obama and then Democrats in the midterm, and then sort-of Obama again. Sanders just doesn't have the organizational infrastructure to run this kind of a project (let alone the funding, all of which is tied to his presidential campaign). What "advancing the progressive movement down-ballot" really means in this context is threatening to primary Democrats who are perceived as insufficiently progressive. Not only would this never really work as a national project - there's no point in trying to primary less-progressive Democrats in conservative states - which would only guarantee more Republicans get elected - but it would also be political suicide for Sanders as he would really be working against the DNC.  

I believe he might have been thinking of something more like Democracy for America, which was born out of the ashes of Howard Dean's 2004 campaign. He basically took the network and staff and such he'd built up during his run and converted the whole thing into a political organization to push progressive politics via various means. And been fairly successful at it.

There's been hope among many that Sanders would take the momentum and supporters he's built up and rather then letting that just drift apart instead help continue pushing his agenda past the campaign via other means. In the same way Dean did.

I've no idea if his current layoffs suggest he's not gonna do that kind of thing, but it might lean that way.

 

Regardless of that point, this behaviour suggests he's in trouble monetarily. I know he's been raising alot but all reports are that he's burning through that money really really fast too. He's spending like double what Clinton is in ad-buys I believe.

[Shryke]

As for Trump's attacks on Clinton, it's already begun. He's accusing her of being shrill and shouty and of playing the women card.

This will not help his numbers among women, which were already bad last I saw.

Shit, it seems like even Christie's wife can't feign a lack of disgust.

[Squab]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Canada is the move of choice because  we have ever so much fewer  idiots with guns. 

This is the kind of supremacist thinking I would expect these celebrities to abhor in public.  I imagine many of these celebrities would preach stricter gun laws, similar to Mexico and unlike Canada.  Mexico seems like the true ideologues choice but not the one being claimed by most of them.  Its almost as if they are only paying lip service to actual change.  Hard to believe that would actually be the case.

I did see Sam Jackson said he would move to South Africa.  I'm sure that's just about sharing his wealth like a good socialist and not about the lulz at another cultures expense.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Ormond said:

As Tywin just pointed out, the main issue isn't "winning over wavering voters", it's demoralizing people who would otherwise vote for Clinton into not voting at all.

Yes, but luckily Trump himself as a candidate will inherently counteract that.

8 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Canada is the liberal elite's 'Galts Gulch'.

Except of course that they rarely follow through, sadly.

Not just the 'liberal elite': Google 'Republicans move to Canada' for proof.

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

Democrats:

• Hillary:  Way too hawkish.
• Bernie:  I'll be writing in his name this November!

Republicans:

• You-Know-Who:  A tiny part of me still hopes that he'll announce that his candidacy was an elaborate prank.
• Cruz:  His positions are revolting.
• Kasich:  Why the hell is he still in the race?

Depending on the state, I hope you enjoy your Christmas card from the RNC.

[Red Hermit]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Not just the 'liberal elite': Google 'Republicans move to Canada' for proof.

Anyone who disapproves of Trump's nationalist rhetoric is too liberal is the eyes of some people.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Red Hermit said:

Anyone who disapproves of Trump's nationalist rhetoric is too liberal is the eyes of some people.

Maybe, but I was referring to Republicans who vowed they'd move to Canada if Obama won.