US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit

[sologdin]

Just now, Liffguard said:

He's totally cool with abolishing slavery being in there as a joke policy though.

otherwise, the violence of the murder and the vastness of bosom in his policy platform are totally artistically justified.

[Ariadne23]

NY Times says linguists have determined that Trump is saying "big league" not "bigly," but unlike "bigly," the usage of "big league" as an adverb is incorrect.

[sologdin]

for trump, the renaissance was something that happened to other people.

[Zorral]

"Did you ever think Reagan’s party would become Putin’s poodle?"

 --David Frum  

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/oversampling-latest-hotness-trumpland

And here we go again.
The data denial.
The conspiracy theories.
This just isn't Trump and his supporters.
This is how the Republican Party rolls. Has been for years.

[Castel]

A good piece on how the GOP base doesn't really have the same priorities in terms of conservative policies as people like Paul Ryan,and why that's now a problem since they can't get a candidate to whip both sides together.

[lokisnow]

Ny times runs a two page spread today documenting everyone Donald trump has insulted in twitter

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/790522535976763393

[Ariadne23]

10 minutes ago, Castel said:

A good piece on how the GOP base doesn't really have the same priorities in terms of conservative policies as people like Paul Ryan,and why that's now a problem since they can't get a candidate to whip both sides together.

Both sides like Mike Pence, don't they?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Castel said:

A good piece on how the GOP base doesn't really have the same priorities in terms of conservative policies as people like Paul Ryan,and why that's now a problem since they can't get a candidate to whip both sides together.

Kind of reminds you of when Ryan came out and said the Muslim ban did not represent his party, only to see a majority of Republican primary voters say they supported it. 

48 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Both sides like Mike Pence, don't they?

Not really. When people were talking about Trump dropping out, many of his supporters said they wouldn't back Pence. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Kind of reminds you of when Ryan came out and said the Muslim ban did not represent his party, only to see a majority of Republican primary voters say they supported it. 

Not really. When people were talking about Trump dropping out, many of his supporters said they wouldn't back Pence. 

Which is another reason two party politics sucks.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

for trump, the renaissance was something that happened to other people.

We didn't land on intellectual enlightenment, intellectual enlightenment landed on us!

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

This is how the Republican Party rolls. Has been for years.

Not really. Considering the huge advantages they started with, Trump's propaganda team has been a colossal failure thus far. They've basically relied on Wikileaks for nearly all concrete anti-Clinton propaganda. Compare this to, say, the last successful Republican presidential campaign. Their masterpiece required convincing a group of war veterans to lie about the opposing candidate's service record, forming a 527 group out of them, running advertisements, etc. etc.

Trump's campaign did not have to do any of this because Clinton had effectively written them a blank check in the form of the deleted emails. All they had to do was a bit of language processing to construct emails which sound vaguely right and a bit of metadata analysis to make sure that there's no way to trace the origin of the emails. Upload the emails from some internet cafe in Romania or whatever and send them to a pro-Republican news outlet. With that in place, they could make practically any claim they want -- the Clinton campaign will deny it of course, but few people trust them, particularly if the claim is something that politicians often initially deny (the very descriptions of the deleted emails as "personal" hints at a potential story line).

The Republican approach to propaganda would have been so easy and inexpensive to implement this time around -- but Trump's campaign did nothing of the sort. I'm not sure whether they were just lazy or they hoped that Wikileaks would release something that decides the election on its own, but in the latter case, they should have at least had a contingency plan.

[Maithanet]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Trump's campaign did not have to do any of this because Clinton had effectively written them a blank check in the form of the deleted emails. All they had to do was a bit of language processing to construct emails which sound vaguely right and a bit of metadata analysis to make sure that there's no way to trace the origin of the emails. Upload the emails from some internet cafe in Romania or whatever and send them to a pro-Republican news outlet. With that in place, they could make practically any claim they want -- the Clinton campaign will deny it of course, but few people trust them, particularly if the claim is something that politicians often initially deny (the very descriptions of the deleted emails as "personal" hints at a potential story line).

The Republican approach to propaganda would have been so easy and inexpensive to implement this time around -- but Trump's campaign did nothing of the sort. I'm not sure whether they were just lazy or they hoped that Wikileaks would release something that decides the election on its own, but in the latter case, they should have at least had a contingency plan.

I think that the Trump campaign didn't want to undercut the impact of the actual emails by creating potentially falsifiable emails which would poison the well. 

I also think that the Trump attacks on Clinton have been pretty lazy.  They always seem aimed at people who already hate Clinton, which can only take you so far. 

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that the Trump campaign didn't want to undercut the impact of the actual emails by creating potentially falsifiable emails which would poison the well.

This is a reasonable strategy, but there must exist some point (right about this week, actually) where it becomes obvious that the impact of real emails released before the election will not be sufficient. I think that they were just lazy and didn't bother with a contingency plan.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is a reasonable strategy, but there must exist some point (right about this week, actually) where it becomes obvious that the impact of real emails released before the election will not be sufficient. I think that they were just lazy and didn't bother with a contingency plan.

Well yeah, I think the most important thing to consider here is that Trump never bothered to pay for any sort of cohesive campaign staff. His whole blueprint has been to wing it, and rely on free media coverage. He clearly doesn't listen to his staffers on top of all that.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not really. Considering the huge advantages they started with, Trump's propaganda team has been a colossal failure thus far. They've basically relied on Wikileaks for nearly all concrete anti-Clinton propaganda. Compare this to, say, the last successful Republican presidential campaign. Their masterpiece required convincing a group of war veterans to lie about the opposing candidate's service record, forming a 527 group out of them, running advertisements, etc. etc.

Trump's campaign did not have to do any of this because Clinton had effectively written them a blank check in the form of the deleted emails. All they had to do was a bit of language processing to construct emails which sound vaguely right and a bit of metadata analysis to make sure that there's no way to trace the origin of the emails. Upload the emails from some internet cafe in Romania or whatever and send them to a pro-Republican news outlet. With that in place, they could make practically any claim they want -- the Clinton campaign will deny it of course, but few people trust them, particularly if the claim is something that politicians often initially deny (the very descriptions of the deleted emails as "personal" hints at a potential story line).

The Republican approach to propaganda would have been so easy and inexpensive to implement this time around -- but Trump's campaign did nothing of the sort. I'm not sure whether they were just lazy or they hoped that Wikileaks would release something that decides the election on its own, but in the latter case, they should have at least had a contingency plan.

This is perhaps a very well argued and lengthy explanation.

It's too bad that it missed my main point by a country mile.

[The Anti-Targ]

57 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not really. Considering the huge advantages they started with, Trump's propaganda team has been a colossal failure thus far. They've basically relied on Wikileaks for nearly all concrete anti-Clinton propaganda. Compare this to, say, the last successful Republican presidential campaign. Their masterpiece required convincing a group of war veterans to lie about the opposing candidate's service record, forming a 527 group out of them, running advertisements, etc. etc.

Trump's campaign did not have to do any of this because Clinton had effectively written them a blank check in the form of the deleted emails. All they had to do was a bit of language processing to construct emails which sound vaguely right and a bit of metadata analysis to make sure that there's no way to trace the origin of the emails. Upload the emails from some internet cafe in Romania or whatever and send them to a pro-Republican news outlet. With that in place, they could make practically any claim they want -- the Clinton campaign will deny it of course, but few people trust them, particularly if the claim is something that politicians often initially deny (the very descriptions of the deleted emails as "personal" hints at a potential story line).

The Republican approach to propaganda would have been so easy and inexpensive to implement this time around -- but Trump's campaign did nothing of the sort. I'm not sure whether they were just lazy or they hoped that Wikileaks would release something that decides the election on its own, but in the latter case, they should have at least had a contingency plan.

It's probably impossible to make sure there's no way to trace them to prove they're false. So if creating a few false e-mails was considered they probably decided the risk of being caught in a fraud was too great.

Unlike the swiftboating. Here there was just he said they said, no way to prove or disprove what either side said, and it appears that the swiftboating was able to benefit from that addage that the best lies are sprinkled with a grain of truth. That the US was handing out purple hearts like candy for any slight injury, and that Kerry benefitted from that lolly jar approach meant the SBVfT group was able to make mileage on something that was not a lie.

[The Anti-Targ]

So according to CNN Clinton is nationally up by +5%. That seems like, given margin for error, a close run thing. But it is the state by state polls that actually matter. What's the picture there?

[Kalbear]

Well...holy shit.

Quote

 

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.

 

 

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So according to CNN Clinton is nationally up by +5%. That seems like, given margin for error, a close run thing. But it is the state by state polls that actually matter. What's the picture there?

Well, here are the latest maps from 538 and the Princeton election consortium. They both aggregate state by state polling data, just in slightly different ways, but their maps are rather similar at the moment

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

http://www.270towin.com/maps/princeton-election-consortium

Princeton had Iowa on the "red" side but recently moved it to light "blue", the same as 538.