Jump to content

US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world


TrackerNeil

Recommended Posts

I just learned Kasich ended his campaign. That's unfortunate. I wanted to see how much support he could pull together in a two man race. I also wanted to make more jokes about his campaign.

Well that means the primaries are over on the Republican side. However even though on the Democratic side it is a forgone conclusion that Clinton will win, let's see how long it will take her to get to that magic number of delegates and let's also hope Sanders can win more contests just to make a louder statement about the popularity of what he stands for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

See, that kind of thing is what makes **me**, at least, uncomfortable about her. It sounds like the very worst of mindsets that a politician can have.  It reminds me of presidents like Nixon, for example.  "Them" vs. "Us."  Circle the wagons.  Stall and obfuscate.  Don't trust "the media."   This particular situation may not be one where these tactics are too, too terrible, but if this attitude carries on into more serious territory, well, I'd really hate for this country's first woman president's term of office to be marred.   If you can't defend your decisions and/or actions in the glare of media attention and be willing to live with the fallout, you're not suited for holding public office.  The decisions you make are too damn important. 

I really wish Bernie were doing better in this race.  Sigh.   

Please. Look at what the "glare of media attention" gives us. Like, say, Trump. The media glare is neither unbiased nor particularly good frequently.

I dno't think it's near as simple as you are implying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Well that means the primaries are over on the Republican side. However even though on the Democratic side it is a forgone conclusion that Clinton will win, let's see how long it will take her to get to that magic number of delegates and let's also hope Sanders can win more contests just to make a louder statement about the popularity of what he stands for.

Clinton will almost certainly win the pledged delegate majority on June 7th. This is when the last of the big states (including California and New Jersey) vote and when nearly 700 delegates are up for grabs. The only contest remaining after that is Washington DC and it would take an unbelievable reversal of fortune for the 20 delegates at stake there to make a difference.

Regarding Clinton's attacks on Trump: it is true that she can go after him in ways that his Republican competitors did not, but he can also go after her in ways that Sanders mostly shunned they involve attacking Democrats. For example, he could make a comment along the lines of Clinton never having seen a Middle Eastern conflict that she didn't want the US involved in. This is a slight exaggeration, but she did vote for Iraq, pushed the disastrous intervention in Libya and wanted deeper involvement in Syria (Obama overruled her on the latter). Furthermore, unless you have a blockbusting revelation to make, the art of attacking a political opponent is not so much in what one says, but in how it is said. At this point, I'm not sure that there is anything original to say about Trump or Clinton so it's mainly a contest of style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

For example, he could make a comment along the lines of Clinton never having seen a Middle Eastern conflict that she didn't want the US involved in. 

To which she could quite easily respond by pointing out that he vowed to murder terrorists' families after banning Muslims from entering the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Clinton will almost certainly win the pledged delegate majority on June 7th. This is when the last of the big states (including California and New Jersey) vote and when nearly 700 delegates are up for grabs. The only contest remaining after that is Washington DC and it would take an unbelievable reversal of fortune for the 20 delegates at stake there to make a difference.

Regarding Clinton's attacks on Trump: it is true that she can go after him in ways that his Republican competitors did not, but he can also go after her in ways that Sanders mostly shunned they involve attacking Democrats. For example, he could make a comment along the lines of Clinton never having seen a Middle Eastern conflict that she didn't want the US involved in. This is a slight exaggeration, but she did vote for Iraq, pushed the disastrous intervention in Libya and wanted deeper involvement in Syria (Obama overruled her on the latter). Furthermore, unless you have a blockbusting revelation to make, the art of attacking a political opponent is not so much in what one says, but in how it is said. At this point, I'm not sure that there is anything original to say about Trump or Clinton so it's mainly a contest of style.

Clinton is already saying shit about Trump no one in this race has said yet. They had shit deployed the minute Trump's competitors both dropped out. There's tons of shit out there that hasn't been touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tears of Lys said:

See, that kind of thing is what makes **me**, at least, uncomfortable about her. It sounds like the very worst of mindsets that a politician can have.  It reminds me of presidents like Nixon, for example.  "Them" vs. "Us."  Circle the wagons.  Stall and obfuscate.  Don't trust "the media."   This particular situation may not be one where these tactics are too, too terrible, but if this attitude carries on into more serious territory, well, I'd really hate for this country's first woman president's term of office to be marred.   If you can't defend your decisions and/or actions in the glare of media attention and be willing to live with the fallout, you're not suited for holding public office.  The decisions you make are too damn important. 

Hillary Clinton has been defending herself for twenty-plus years and some people still think she's untrustworthy and unaccomplished. No defense--not Fort Knox nor the English Channel nor the Great Wall of China--will convince those people otherwise. So why should Clinton bother persuading those who simply will not be persuaded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I realize that this could go in the thread that Ser Scot started about the Vox article on liberal smugness, but I'd rather put it here.

Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base?  Actually, couldn't one go a step further?  If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable?  None of this was ever about "conservative values."  It was all just tribal, nativist rage. 

I don't think there are many predictions the so-called liberals have said about Trumps nomination that have been correct. It reeks of an echo chamber sounding "we know them and we know whats better for them" prevailing in some leftist circles.  If anything, I think Trumps nomination in the face of liberal disbelief proves that smugness, perhaps even more so than your post.  I think there was a quote in said Vox article about George W Bush saying people misunderestimated [sic] him or something equally stupid sounding.  I think that also applies to Trump.  He did win the nomination after all.

The left wing Guardian's belief:  http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/22/donald-trump-wont-win-republican-presidential-nomination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/04/top_conservative_pundits_lash_out_in_disbelief_after_ted_cruz_and_john_kasich_fail_to_stop_donald_trump_we_are_going_to_get_our_asses_kicked_in_the_general_election/

Top conservative pundits lash out in disbelief after Ted Cruz and John Kasich fail to stop Donald Trump: “We are going to get our asses kicked in the general election!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/04/top_conservative_pundits_lash_out_in_disbelief_after_ted_cruz_and_john_kasich_fail_to_stop_donald_trump_we_are_going_to_get_our_asses_kicked_in_the_general_election/

Top conservative pundits lash out in disbelief after Ted Cruz and John Kasich fail to stop Donald Trump: “We are going to get our asses kicked in the general election!” Welp, they created this monster, now they have to deal with the consequences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Triskan said:

I realize that this could go in the thread that Ser Scot started about the Vox article on liberal smugness, but I'd rather put it here.

Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base? 

Not really. I think a lot of Trump's appeal is made up of the 'something different' factor, and latterly the usual benefit that accrues to a front-runner (particularly when people just want the race to be over). Besides, there's clear evidence that lots of Republican base voters are just as turned off by Trump as liberal ones. I would imagine lots of them have stayed home in recent contests, rather than vote for Trump or Cruz.

There's undoubtedly an element of nativist rage in Trump's support, the vocal ones who show up at rallies with painted signs (although I'm sure that many who turn up at Trump rallies are there for the spectacle rather than the ideology). But if that was all it was about, then Cruz should have been giving Trump a lot closer run for his money. It's also about Trump's presentation of himself as an anti-politician, the entertainment value of his campaign and people mistaking being crass for 'straight talking'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Triskan said:

I realize that this could go in the thread that Ser Scot started about the Vox article on liberal smugness, but I'd rather put it here.

Does Trump's nomination not confirm almost every smug, condescending thing liberals have said about the Republican base?  Actually, couldn't one go a step further?  If some smug, condescending liberal was like "Republicans are rubes who vote against their own interests by being bewitched by 'guns, God, and gays' stuff," would not that liberal have been far too charitable?  None of this was ever about "conservative values."  It was all just tribal, nativist rage. 

I didn't buy that Vox article, but I think you're right about nativist rage being more central to the right-wingers than conservative dogma. In fact, I'll go one step further and say none of us should be surprised by Trump's rise. (Even though we all were.) For the last fifty years Republicans have based their appeal on stunts and symbolism (Flag-burning amendment! Whitewater investigation! Benghazi! Gay marriage!), so is it any wonder that the party should be vulnerable to a snake-oil salesman like Donald Trump? 

Jonathan Chait has said that Trump basically detached the Republican forebrain from the Republican lizard brain, and I think he's right. More proof arrives every time a Republican senator says that NeverTrump means MaybeTrump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Hillary Clinton has been defending herself for twenty-plus years and some people still think she's untrustworthy and unaccomplished. No defense--not Fort Knox nor the English Channel nor the Great Wall of China--will convince those people otherwise. So why should Clinton bother persuading those who simply will not be persuaded?

No TN. A large majority of Americans think she's untrustworthy. And while she may not be able to persuade many of those people to think otherwise, she shouldn't be doing things that further bake in that perception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see the conservative intellectuals who are still anti-Trump complaining about him, and especially his supporters, not being "true conservatives." According to their definitions, they're probably right -- but most Trump supporters seem to believe that THEY are the "true conservatives" and anti-Trump "establishment" Republicans are really not "conservative" enough. Being "conservative" to Trump supporters mostly means being anti-immigrant, pro-gun, against "political correctness", pro-military, and super-patriotic. They really could care less about laissez-faire economics or the other positions that right-wing intellectuals use as their litmus tests for "conservatism." Which of course shows that the conservative politicians who've attracted voters into the Republican party on the basis of "dog whistle" issues like flag-burning have done a very poor job of educating these voters on what "real conservatism" is. And that may just be karma for their lack of support of good public education over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It's interesting to see the conservative intellectuals who are still anti-Trump complaining about him, and especially his supporters, not being "true conservatives." According to their definitions, they're probably right -- but most Trump supporters seem to believe that THEY are the "true conservatives" and anti-Trump "establishment" Republicans are really not "conservative" enough. Being "conservative" to Trump supporters mostly means being anti-immigrant, pro-gun, against "political correctness", pro-military, and super-patriotic. They really could care less about laissez-faire economics or the other positions that right-wing intellectuals use as their litmus tests for "conservatism." Which of course shows that the conservative politicians who've attracted voters into the Republican party on the basis of "dog whistle" issues like flag-burning have done a very poor job of educating these voters on what "real conservatism" is. And that may just be karma for their lack of support of good public education over the years.

This is the fault line that's largely fracturing the Republican Party. The base no longer gives a damn about the establishment's economic policies, and in many ways are revolting against them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No TN. A large majority of Americans think she's untrustworthy. And while she may not be able to persuade many of those people to think otherwise, she shouldn't be doing things that further bake in that perception. 

We've been over this, and at the time I cited evidence* that people thinking she's untrustworthy doesn't mean they'll vote against her. That being the case, Clinton shouldn't be spending time talking people out of something that doesn't affect their votes.

*I'm not searching for that evidence again, but feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

One can find a candidate unlikeable and untrustworthy and still think they will be the best president.

Absolutely, but of course the same applies to Trump. My impression is that quite a significant proportion of Trump's supporters don't agree with many of his public statements, but still think he would be a good President. I think Clinton has to hit him, not on his policies (which he'll likely try to play down from here on anyway) but on his suitability for office: his temperament, his judgement, his lack of experience, his personality.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is the fault line that's largely fracturing the Republican Party. The base no longer gives a damn about the establishment's economic policies, and in many ways are revolting against them. 

Going back to the old 'voting against your interests' line, you could argue that this fault line represents the base finally ceasing to do that - but they're doing it by taking over the party's agenda, rather than switching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That was a goodie. One thing that stood out to me, does Mitt Romney seem a whole lot more 'presidential' now than he ever did while running or was I just super wasted back in 2011-2012?

Its not just you. In a lot of ways he's been experiencing the conservative version of Al Gore's post-election journey. Getting much looser and unscripted; which makes him seem both more presidential and more likable than he ever did in 2012. Though a big part of that is also that he doesn't publicly talk policy anymore, so its easy to forget how terrible his ideas for running the country are.

 

13 hours ago, Shryke said:

I was listening to an episode of the podcast "Keeping it 1600" and they were talking about VP picks and Obama's 2008 campaign and all that.

And one of them describes Evan Bayh as the perpetual name on everyone's list and "the most vetted human being alive". 

I don't regularly listen to that one, but those guys know what they're talking back. I hadn't heard that about Bayh, but it makes sense. No matter what path for VP a Democratic campaign ends up going, they are always going to at least strongly consider an absolute center, photogenic white guy from outside the Northeast or West Coast who has history of getting cross-over votes from Republicans. And Bayh absolutely hits every one of those marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...