US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But...she did release the emails, and she did so pretty much as fast as she was legally able to. If she had done it faster then people would have (rightfully) chided her for releasing secret mail to the public. 

Now there's some revisionist history. 

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I doubt it'll be that effective. Effective for whom? Trump can try and make that attack, but so what? If she does release them he'll just say that she's a puppet anyway. He'll say that regardless. Another way to say it is this: Clinton releasing or not releasing those transcripts doesn't change that Trump attack one bit. Not even for a second. He'll still call her dishonest, just like he has basically every single other opponent he has had. He'll still call her opaque. He'll still say that she was bought and paid for. None of this changes. Nothing at all. 

Except in one of those two scenarios he can call her dishonest and say she's hiding something. That can be damaging to a candidate who is notoriously lacking in transparency and polls terribly on honesty and trustworthiness. And when you tie the transcripts and the emails together it makes the attack all the more powerful.

Like I said to TN, this isn't going to be about getting voters to switch sides, it's about depressing the turnout of people who are unenthusiastically backing Clinton. 

[Weeping Sore]

I don't know about my turnout, but I'm depressed by Clinton/Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There are lots of ways that Trump can win, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that none of them have to do with things like political steps or debate performance. They have to do with Trump somehow making everyone forget that two months ago he was insulting people's wives and talking about the size of his dick and getting all the republican voters and most of the undecideds in battleground states that look super encouraging for Democratic presidential candidates, and they have to do with Clinton not making monumental personal gaffes that she has unfortunately often done. 

I disagree. There is, for the most part, only one way Trump can win; destroy HRC's name and credibility. That's his best and possibly only path to the White House.

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

For the hundredth time, it's not about getting people to switch from Hillary to Trump, it's about depressing her supporters turnout. 

I get that, yes. However, I suspect that a Trump candidacy is going to galvanize Latinos and women and African-Americans like nothing else. We'll see, but I suspect those demographics will more than offset a few Hillary-haters or Bernie-or-busters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I get that, yes. However, I suspect that a Trump candidacy is going to galvanize Latinos and women and African-Americans like nothing else. We'll see, but I suspect those demographics will more than offset a few Hillary-haters or Bernie-or-busters.

Probably, but far from definitely.  I'm not suggesting that Trump will likely beat Clinton. I'm just laying out the most likely path for it to happen. 

So on a funnier note, what poor soul is going to get stuck being Trump's VP? Is his daughter 35 yet?

[Kalbear]

Apparently Ben Carson is going to head trumps vp candidate committee. 

...

[Shryke]

29 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I get that, yes. However, I suspect that a Trump candidacy is going to galvanize Latinos and women and African-Americans like nothing else. We'll see, but I suspect those demographics will more than offset a few Hillary-haters or Bernie-or-busters.

It already is.

And the number of "Bernie-or-Busters" is less then the percentage of "Hillary-or-Bush" types in 2008 and in the end those people came around. I suspect it won't be that big an issue overall.

[S John]

1 hour ago, Weeping Sore said:

I don't know about my turnout, but I'm depressed by Clinton/Trump.

The worst of both worlds.  Well, almost.  At least Cruz is out.  I seriously would much rather Trump be president than Cruz.  That guy fuckin' creeps me out.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Word is that Kasich has cancelled all events today, except for a newly scheduled press conference in Ohio at 5pm. An event tomorrow has also been cancelled.

Either he's going to drop out or introduce Carly Fiorina as his VP nominee.

Guess he didn't want to be President bad enough. Or reality has finally set in.

He's out. It's not that reality set in as that with Cruz out, he's got no shot any more.

His plan, at least imo, was to let Cruz pull enough votes from Trump to make the convention a contested one and then win the second or later ballot on the grounds that he's not Trump, he's not Cruz and he "puts Ohio into play".

With Trump winning Indiana and Cruz gone, he can't keep Trump from hitting the numbers he need to win the first ballot anymore.

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

There are lots of ways that Trump can win, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that none of them have to do with things like political steps or debate performance. They have to do with Trump somehow making everyone forget that two months ago he was insulting people's wives and talking about the size of his dick and getting all the republican voters and most of the undecideds in battleground states that look super encouraging for Democratic presidential candidates, and they have to do with Clinton not making monumental personal gaffes that she has unfortunately often done. 

Trump has alienated and insulted everyone but white males...and he can't win with just those votes. This isn't the 1950's. 70% of women hate him, even Republican women. That's not to mention Latinos, African Americans, the LGBT community, you name it. 

He can try to schmooze those groups after the convention, but it's not going to work. He's made his disdain and contempt for those groups abundantly clear and they aren't going to forget it. 

Those who believe that Sanders' supporters will jump ship and go to Trump are delusional, IMO. They'll come around. Hillary's supporters said the same thing in 2008 when Obama got the nod, and they turned out to vote for him in droves. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Weeping Sore said:

I don't know about my turnout, but I'm depressed by Clinton/Trump.

Having an election at all seems totally pointless with these choices. I'm officially apathetic and feel I will regret either of them winning.

[lokisnow]

here's my worry.

The most effective television advertising of the 2012 campaign was the Obama campaign anti-Romney advertising from May until the convention.

This largely defined Romney before the August-November general election sprint and since this advertising was relatively cheap compared to the premiums paid in August-November, it had an incredibly high return on investment.

With Kasich dropping out and Sanders doing his best to damage the party and candidacy to which he does not belong, I'm afraid we're going to lose the opportunity to do the same thing in this pre-convention period to Trump.

Sanders should drop out.

[Corvinus85]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Probably, but far from definitely.  I'm not suggesting that Trump will likely beat Clinton. I'm just laying out the most likely path for it to happen. 

So on a funnier note, what poor soul is going to get stuck being Trump's VP? Is his daughter 35 yet?

If only his wife was a natural born citizen. Fiction could have become reality. 

[lokisnow]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Having an election at all seems totally pointless with these choices. I'm officially apathetic and feel I will regret either of them winning.

I would suggest you please get excited about voting for the non-presidential races that share the ballot.  Feel free to spoil your ballot with a third party or write in vote or decline to vote at all on the presidential race, but please vote in all the other races, they are much more important than often given credence.

[Ormond]

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Probably, but far from definitely.  I'm not suggesting that Trump will likely beat Clinton. I'm just laying out the most likely path for it to happen. 

So on a funnier note, what poor soul is going to get stuck being Trump's VP? Is his daughter 35 yet?

His older daughter (and his oldest son) will be  over 35. (Ivanka turns 35 just a few days before the election.) His other 3 kids would not be eligible. 

[S John]

29 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Trump has alienated and insulted everyone but white males...and he can't win with just those votes. This isn't the 1950's. 70% of women hate him, even Republican women. That's not to mention Latinos, African Americans, the LGBT community, you name it. 

He can try to schmooze those groups after the convention, but it's not going to work. He's made his disdain and contempt for those groups abundantly clear and they aren't going to forget it. 

Those who believe that Sanders' supporters will jump ship and go to Trump are delusional, IMO. They'll come around. Hillary's supporters said the same thing in 2008 when Obama got the nod, and they turned out to vote for him in droves. 

I'd say most ex-Bernies will definitely go into Hillary's camp but I think Trump could certainly get some of them depending on what notes he hits going forward.  His stance on trade seems closer to Bernie than Hillary and Trump hasn't voted the US into any conflicts.  Admittedly we have no idea what Trump's foreign policy would be like.  One minute he's talking about wiping ISIS off the map and the next he's sounding more isolationist.  

Anyway, if your main issues are bringing jobs back to this country and being less hawk-ish I could see how Trump might be able to paint the right picture in order to get some former Bern supporters.  I also think Trump is much more socially progressive than Cruz.  I don't see him trying to do anything to reverse gay marriage or anything like that.  He is not religious and there really isn't a good secular reason to oppose it.  I doubt he touches abortion.  

We will see how he handles social issues moving forward but now that he has the R nomination sewn up I believe he will make a strong push towards the center.  He'll hammer Hillary on Benghazi, the Goldman Sachs speeches, the emails, etc.  And he'll make immigration and jobs the core of his platform without threatening the social progress of the Obama years.  

Last fall I thought Trump would be a distant memory at this point, but I was wrong and I am not underestimating him anymore.  He can absolutely win against Clinton.  I do not think it will be the blowout people are predicting.

[Mudguard]

33 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

here's my worry.

The most effective television advertising of the 2012 campaign was the Obama campaign anti-Romney advertising from May until the convention.

This largely defined Romney before the August-November general election sprint and since this advertising was relatively cheap compared to the premiums paid in August-November, it had an incredibly high return on investment.

With Kasich dropping out and Sanders doing his best to damage the party and candidacy to which he does not belong, I'm afraid we're going to lose the opportunity to do the same thing in this pre-convention period to Trump.

Sanders should drop out.

I don't think Sander's needs to drop out, but since he really has no chance anymore absent a big Clinton scandal that would force her to withdraw, he should stop attacking her and just focus his message on the issues that he cares about.  I don't have a problem with Sanders staying in until the FBI concludes its email investigation, as long as he stops with the negative attacks on Clinton.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm depressed by Clinton-Trump too, but I came to accept even as I was voting for Bernie that he wouldn't be the nominee, so it was going to be Clinton vs. Someone Awful no matter what. Still, the solidification of the Republican electorate around Trump is more depressing in what it says about our political culture than the nomination of garden variety jackasses like Cruz or Kasich or Jeb! would have been.

I think the focus on how Trump will attack Clinton is a little misguided. Unless an honest to goodness indictment drops before the election, I don't think Clinton's numbers on trustworthiness will move or become a critical weakness because people long ago settled on their political opinion of Hillary Clinton. I think there is real damage to be done to Trump's image and brand in the coming election. He's been able to play a savvy, authoritative, successful deal-maker on TV, but he's never had to be as non-manufactured as he'll have to be in a general election. He's also never come under the kind of sustained attack that Clinton and Democratic affiliates will put on. If there are people who really do support Trump primarily for his "good businessman" image, will Clinton be able to discourage them with an assault on his business credibility?

[BloodRider]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BR,

I don't like Trump but your metaphore fails.  The worms (Shai-Hulud) made the spice.  They didn't "gobble" resources they created the most important resource of all the spice Melange.

I though that had changed by the time of God Emperor of Dune.  In that book, wasn't there only the Paul / Worm hybrid who horded all the spice in his desert oasis?  

Been a long time since I went that deep into Dune.

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm depressed by Clinton-Trump too, but I came to accept even as I was voting for Bernie that he wouldn't be the nominee, so it was going to be Clinton vs. Someone Awful no matter what. Still, the solidification of the Republican electorate around Trump is more depressing in what it says about our political culture than the nomination of garden variety jackasses like Cruz or Kasich or Jeb! would have been.

I think the focus on how Trump will attack Clinton is a little misguided. Unless an honest to goodness indictment drops before the election, I don't think Clinton's numbers on trustworthiness will move or become a critical weakness because people long ago settled on their political opinion of Hillary Clinton. I think there is real damage to be done to Trump's image and brand in the coming election. He's been able to play a savvy, authoritative, successful deal-maker on TV, but he's never had to be as non-manufactured as he'll have to be in a general election. He's also never come under the kind of sustained attack that Clinton and Democratic affiliates will put on. If there are people who really do support Trump primarily for his "good businessman" image, will Clinton be able to discourage them with an assault on his business credibility?

I've seen the argument brought up several times now that people have long ago made up their minds about Clinton's trustworthiness, so nothing now will change that perception.  Maybe this is true for the older generation that have lived through the Bill Clinton presidency, but I don't think this is necessarily true with the younger generation.  Clinton's baggage from the 90's isn't that relevant to the younger generation.  But they can see how she acts now and form their own opinion whether they think Clinton is trustworthy or not, whether she is transparent or not, etc, based on her current actions.  

Getting the younger voters was a big part of Obama's success.  Clinton, on the other hand, has not performed nearly as well with younger voters, and younger voters are not the most reliable at showing up at the polls.  I think Clinton has to do more to rehabilitate her image with these young voters.  Right now, all Clinton's actions reinforce the perception that she is untrustworthy, but I think she can change that perception with at least some young voters.