U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

^^^^^^

Yeah, this was not a good campaign. 2 fired campaign managers alone should underline that fact. The 2 things you can credit this campaign for were recognizing late that they had a shot in the Rust Belt, and shutting down the improv act their candidate was so inclined to in the last month or so of the campaign. 

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

and shutting down the improv act their candidate was so inclined to down in the last month or so of the campaign. 

This, without extreme handling by his managers including stopping the late night tweets he would have continued to lose ground, I do believe. 

[Kalbear]

Another way to say it is that if this were a typical Republican campaign chances are very good that they would have trounced Clinton and had a Obama-like win. 

[DunderMifflin]

There were plenty of typical Republican candidates in the running, they all washed out.

[Gertrude]

Trump had timing on his side. His strength was picking the right message at the right time against the right candidate. It doesn't show that his campaign was therefore good, it just shows that a well run campaign isn't the end-all-be-all. I think that messaging is part of a campaign strategy, but it's only the most visible and superficial part. It seemed like the day-to-day nuts and bolts were nothing special, and at various times seemed to be a hot-mess.

[ThinkerX]

I find this disturbing, especially after the Newt's pre-pardoning suggestion:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-moves-to-slash-powers-of-ethics-watchdog/ar-BBxPrgr?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Quote

The move guts a major piece of an ethics overhaul Congress undertook after several high-profile scandals sent lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others to federal prison.

The independent Office of Congressional Ethics, launched in 2008 to address concerns that the lawmaker-run House Ethics Committee failed to adequately police members of Congress, now would be subject to oversight by the House Ethics Committee, under the proposed rules package adopted by Republican lawmakers. The new rules also would bar investigators from reviewing anonymous complaints against lawmakers.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, known as OCE, would be renamed the  “Office of Congressional Complaint Review."

The independent ethics office, which has had the power to launch investigations and publicly release reports detailing the results of their probes, has long clashed with the ethics panel and the lawmakers it has investigated.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., opposed the move to limit OCE's powers during Monday night's gathering.

[/quote]

At this rate, I anticipate major corruption scandals within the Trump administration before the year is out, and probably the republican party as well.

[Altherion]

I think people here see all of the traditional campaign things that Trump didn't do or did badly, but they either don't see or badly underestimate the things that he did well. Off the top of my head:

1) The rejection of political correctness. This was an innovative and extremely risky strategy that paid off in a big way. He correctly noticed that despite strong bipartisan support, enough of the people who might consider supporting him were sick and tired of political correctness to make throwing it out altogether worthwhile.

2) The use of social media. Mainstream media laughed at his post-midnight Twitter rants, but most of his tweets were front-page news and this allowed him to speak to people directly.

3) The rallies. This is very old fashioned and reaches only a few thousand people at a time, but it turns that it can still be important. The media focused on the violence that Trump's fans occasionally engaged in, but this is missing the forest for the trees. There was a large number of candidates in this election and not a single one of them had fans who were so excited about their candidate.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I think people here see all of the traditional campaign things that Trump didn't do or did badly, but they either don't see or badly underestimate the things that he did well. Off the top of my head:

1) The rejection of political correctness. This was an innovative and extremely risky strategy that paid off in a big way. He correctly noticed that despite strong bipartisan support, enough of the people who might consider supporting him were sick and tired of political correctness to make throwing it out altogether worthwhile.

2) The use of social media. Mainstream media laughed at his post-midnight Twitter rants, but most of his tweets were front-page news and this allowed him to speak to people directly.

3) The rallies. This is very old fashioned and reaches only a few thousand people at a time, but it turns that it can still be important. The media focused on the violence that Trump's fans occasionally engaged in, but this is missing the forest for the trees. There was a large number of candidates in this election and not a single one of them had fans who were so excited about their candidate.

No, I agree with you that these were all important points. That said, I'd say only #3 could be contributed at all to this campaign, and even then it was his singular ability to gauge his crowds that made these so successful. I attribute the vast majority of these strengths to the candidate, not the campaign. 

 I don't even believe that #1 was (at least initially) a calculated strategy. It's just who he is. Pretty much the same with #2.

[DunderMifflin]

The more I think about it I'd put it higher considering what it was up against. Who can we really say ran an above average campaign in recent history? Bill Clintons 92 run maybe??? 2000 Bush i guess.I think Obama's ran itself pretty much, his charisma just sealed it. It's mostly just somebody with huge money behind them that goes with the already established positions of their parties with maybe a couple of tiny off script opinions. Other than that I'd say the best campaigns we've seen were from guys like Howard Dean that got farther than expected but ultimately fizzled out for whatever reason. 

 

Also when you go back to Bush and Clinton it's an era before our current hyper media when it was much easier to look cool at all times.

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I don't even believe that #1 was (at least initially) a calculated strategy. It's just who he is. Pretty much the same with #2.

It's really difficult to determine whether a particular aspect of a candidate is something intrinsic or something calculated. However, regarding #1, consider his previous presidential campaign. He was not politically incorrect back in 2000 -- in fact, his campaign promises were along the lines of universal health care and fair trade.

Social media is a bit more straightforward. Consider the fact that Trump is 70 years old. How many 70 year olds even use Twitter to begin with? There aren't many of them and most of those who do use it probably aren't very good at it. Social media didn't come into its own until Trump was in his 60s. Now, there do exist a few people who have dreamed of a technology all of their lives and when they finally get their hands on it, people are surprised at how naturally it comes to them despite their advanced age. It may be that Trump is one of these people, but it is much more likely that he saw the potential of Twitter and learned to use it effectively.

[LongRider]

5 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

 Who can we really say ran an above average campaign in recent history?

Barak Obama, 2008 and 2012.

[LongRider]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I find this disturbing, especially after the Newt's pre-pardoning suggestion:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-moves-to-slash-powers-of-ethics-watchdog/ar-BBxPrgr?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Quote

The move guts a major piece of an ethics overhaul Congress undertook after several high-profile scandals sent lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others to federal prison.

I wonder what Abramoff thinks about this?  Will K Street start up again? Is Tom Delay updating his Rolodex?  Pre-ignaugral cya for PEOTUS?  This is not good news.

[DunderMifflin]

24 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Barak Obama, 2008 and 2012.

Debatable. There were fireworks and parties when he was elected for '08. That campaign ran itself. Obama's charisma made it super easy to run a campaign around. Contrary to claims, it was far from a scandal free campaign, even if the scandals were ridiculous they were taken seriously by many (Birther movement, Jeremaih Wright)  I mean....Sarah Palin, the "game changer". 2nd terms are typically easier so 2012 shouldn't be seen as anything magical.

 

[mormont]

On 31/12/2016 at 4:32 PM, snake said:

What Trump was always going to do does not diminish what Obama has done. 

It's quite relevant when you're explicitly suggesting the latter 'enables' the former, though. If the former was always going to happen, the latter isn't a factor in making it happen.

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

The election is not about the ground game or endorsements or having multiple paths to victory or anything of the sort. It's about getting the most Electoral College votes. The latter has traditionally been correlated with many of the things you mention, but Trump demonstrated that it is not necessarily correlated with them. He had a different vision of how to win a presidential campaign and he made it work for him.

No, this is just ex post facto reasoning. Trump had little vision of how to run a campaign and certainly the vision he did have didn't encompass what actually happened. He didn't set out with the intention of fluking a victory in the EC while losing the popular vote, he didn't intend to sack two campaign managers and he didn't intend to get trashed in the press.

This notion that Trump ran a good campaign because he won is like saying that if I accidentally deflect a ball into the net I'm a great striker. OK, I had to be in the right place to do it, but it had nothing to do with my technique.

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

I think people here see all of the traditional campaign things that Trump didn't do or did badly, but they either don't see or badly underestimate the things that he did well. Off the top of my head:

1) The rejection of political correctness. This was an innovative and extremely risky strategy that paid off in a big way. He correctly noticed that despite strong bipartisan support, enough of the people who might consider supporting him were sick and tired of political correctness to make throwing it out altogether worthwhile.

Blethers. It's not at all innovative (numerous politicians have staked this ground over the last decade) and there is good evidence that many of the votes Trump won were in spite of, not because of, his offensiveness. You are, yet again, projecting onto voters your own feelings.

[LongRider]

25 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Debatable. There were fireworks and parties when he was elected for '08. That campaign ran itself. Obama's charisma made it super easy to run a campaign around. Contrary to claims, it was far from a scandal free campaign, even if the scandals were ridiculous they were taken seriously by many (Birther movement, Jeremaih Wright)  I mean....Sarah Palin, the "game changer". 2nd terms are typically easier so 2012 shouldn't be seen as anything magical.

 

No, not debatable.  Obama put in a huge amount of work into his campaign, and alot of that was behind the scenes, and no matter how much O's charisma there was, he was still black and this was still a mountain to climb. 

He understood that to run a successful campaign he needed data and he developed ways to find and use good voter data, which both Clinton and Trump did.  He understood grass roots and how to use them and how to use volunteers.  As for seeing the 2012 as magical, believe me, I do not as being as I was a volunteer on his campaign in swing state I can tell you there was no magic involved, just huge amounts of hard work.

Birtherism and J. Wright weren't scandals, they were manufactured bullshit against Obama.  If birtherism was a scandal, then it is one for your boy Trump.  Palin changed the game for McCain and not in a good way.   

[Werthead]

13 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rippounet,

I think it was a Mistake to bring the Baltics into NATO.  Nevertheless they're part of the alliance and we have an obligation to include them in mutual defense plans.  That includes preparing them to fight and for the rest of NATO to fight alongside them.

I agree. I also think it wasn't a mistake to bring the Baltics in, but it was a mistake to suggest to Russia that "spheres of influence" had any place in the post-Cold War world. If the Baltic States - democratic countries with their own elected governments - wanted to join NATO and the EU and fulfilled the terms for doing so, then that was purely up to them as sovereign nations.

The rest of the world either had to respect those countries as sovereign nations capable of self-determination, or wayward provinces of Russia, and given that Russia itself recognised the Baltic States as independent countries in September 1991 that should have settled the argument.

There is a place for realpolitik and once Russia had reasserted itself then refusing to allow Ukraine and Georgia into either NATO or the EU was probably prudent. But the Baltic States are in and we have to honour our commitments to them. Refusing to defend the Baltic States from Russia risks emboldening Russia for a military invasion of Ukraine or interventions elsewhere.

I hope that Putin is a rational actor enough to realise that there is a line in the sand over which Russia can stumble into disaster (along with the rest of the world), but the risk of that stumble is increased by the line not being established. Reaffirming that the USA and the rest of the alliance will defend the Baltic States if necessary would establish that line. Right now it is questionable if Trump will do that, and if he doesn't Putin may interpret that as a green light for, if not outright invasion, increased interference in all three countries (and probably Ukraine and Georgia as well).

I suspect that, today anyway, Putin is going to be more concerned by Trump ratcheting up the rhetoric against North Korea.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

I think people here see all of the traditional campaign things that Trump didn't do or did badly, but they either don't see or badly underestimate the things that he did well. Off the top of my head:

1) The rejection of political correctness. This was an innovative and extremely risky strategy that paid off in a big way. He correctly noticed that despite strong bipartisan support, enough of the people who might consider supporting him were sick and tired of political correctness to make throwing it out altogether worthwhile.

2) The use of social media. Mainstream media laughed at his post-midnight Twitter rants, but most of his tweets were front-page news and this allowed him to speak to people directly.

3) The rallies. This is very old fashioned and reaches only a few thousand people at a time, but it turns that it can still be important. The media focused on the violence that Trump's fans occasionally engaged in, but this is missing the forest for the trees. There was a large number of candidates in this election and not a single one of them had fans who were so excited about their candidate

these things helped him in that they created the perception he was a joke candidate, or had little to no chance of winning, which I believe kept the Dems turnout relatively low.  Trump's numbers weren't that different than Romney's.  I think this really created some apathy amongst likely Clinton voters who then staid home because they figured it was guaranteed Dem victory.

I don't know if I'd say these were things the campaign or Trump did well, as you said it's hard to determine what the real intent was here.  The shit show of the rallies, his twittermania, and him bragging about sexual assaults; combined with Hillary's uninspiring candidacy resulted in a pretty shitty Dem turnout especially among younger voters.

And on top of that, the Republican base turned out.  We saw all the higher ups in the party fall in line behind the guy that insulted them and they said they'd never endorse, not with a bang but a whimper.

This is all just speculation on my part, I guess.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The idea that Trump ran a good campaign is one of the more laughable things I've ever heard or read. It was a disaster careening from mistake to mistake on a daily, and sometimes hourly basis. However, what's also become clear is that Clinton ran a pretty poor campaign as well. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah I dont think I can forgive the Clinton campaign for not paying enough attention to Michigan. I mean, the problems with polling here were evident during the primaries itself. She was not losing a single poll during the primaries and lost the state to Sanders - might have given a clue as to how the general would turn out. Once you make that leap, paying more attention to Wisconsin sort of suggests itself. I think PA probably was a lost cause anyway, so I'm not sure whether it would have been enough to push her over.

Michigan has some serious election problems, apparently Detroit has 700 more votes than voters. Not sure whether this is going to get better over time or not, but for the sake of the integrity of elections someone needs to fix it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah I dont think I can forgive the Clinton campaign for not paying enough attention to Michigan. I mean, the problems with polling here were evident during the primaries itself. She was not losing a single poll during the primaries and lost the state to Sanders - might have given a clue as to how the general would turn out. Once you make that leap, paying more attention to Wisconsin sort of suggests itself. I think PA probably was a lost cause anyway, so I'm not sure whether it would have been enough to push her over.

Michigan has some serious election problems, apparently Detroit has 700 more votes than voters. Not sure whether this is going to get better over time or not, but for the sake of the integrity of elections someone needs to fix it.

I'm very curious as to why Michigan has 700 more votes than voters.