US elections: The Trumpening

[mormont]

So it's good to know that after all, Donald Trump is careful about not condemning entire groups of people on hearsay and wants to take the time to research them before making a comment. Guess which group has brought about this bout of conscientiousness on Trump's part?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/index.html

Trump appears to be claiming that he doesn't know anything about white supremacists. I'm wondering what it is he thinks he needs to know about them before saying whether or not he wants their support?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Probably whether their support hurt his poll numbers.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

So it's good to know that after all, Donald Trump is careful about not condemning entire groups of people on hearsay and wants to take the time to research them before making a comment. Guess which group has brought about this bout of conscientiousness on Trump's part?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/index.html

Trump appears to be claiming that he doesn't know anything about white supremacists. I'm wondering what it is he thinks he needs to know about them before saying whether or not he wants their support?

If their votes are the difference that get him into the White House, why should he care what they believe in, as long as they vote for him?

[Kalbear]

It's also a bit amusing to think that he doesn't know anything about duke given that duke being part of the reform party was why trump said he left in 2000.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Just to be clear, Hillary Clinton has been a "candidate on a national scale" since 2000,when she (successully) ran for US Senate. She ran again in 2006, then ran for president in 2008, then stood for confirmation to a cabinet post in 2009. I don't recall anyone bringing up much about her supposed crimes against women on any of those occasions. 

Maybe you're right and voters will decide to take an interest today in something they didn't for the last fifteen years. We'll see.

I'm going to assume that you already know things like that only residents of a state vote for Senators for their state, meaning Senators aren't on ballots nationally, and that cabinets posts also aren't on ballots.  I'll give you the 2008 primary, but it's not what I meant and you already know it because we've had this conversation before.

I'm completely baffled why you insist that this isn't going to be an issue.  It's already been brought up by the opposing party and the probable GOP nominee has said that he'll continue hitting her on this when he's facing off with her.  There have been plenty of articles about it that I've previously linked.  We already know that some of Bill's victims have joined up with Super PACS in order to attack Hillary on this.  There is a lot more money that goes into attacking a presidential candidate than a senatorial one.

Then again, maybe you're right and it won't be an issue because we'll have Bernie on the ballot instead. A millennial woman can wish.  

[lokisnow]

We don't think it's an issue because for it to be an issue the person attacking Clinton will have to convince and flip hearts and minds that hillary Clinton was a co-abuser with bill Clinton rather than his wife who hates the other woman (quite naturally).

The latter explanation is the simplest one and it is important to remember the only woman the general public knows universally is lewinski, so any other victim of bill Clinton will be comprehended by the persuadable public through the lens and frame of the lewinski story they already know.

This means the attacker has to also reframe the new story of a much less known and much less public victim and persuade the public on those differences. Most people will say, 'oh this is just like lewinski' and apply the same conclusion they already have to any new story.

The attacker will also have to get the media to cover it, but most stories of sexual infidelity that are decades old are very difficult to vet and fact check. To avoid libel and slander lawsuits the media will have to be very careful in coverage and will report these stories skeptically as they have no orgy of content to exploit as the media possessed with lewinski.

It seems unlikely to gain traction, except with people who already dislike Clinton.

trying to figure out plausible mechanisms by which attackers can persuade people to flip their opinion if they support hillary clinton or if they are neutral to adopt a negative position on how she approached "the other woman" through the years is rather difficult.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Tempra said:

Looks like someone is trying to defend his (future) vote for Rape Culture.

Tempra, I know you have a thing for me, but leave me out of your fantasies. People are starting to notice.

[alguien]

9 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Err, Bill's sexual misconducts involved a lot more than two women and ran the gambit from sexual harassment to sexual assault and rape.  This isn't simply about Lewinsky. Nor is it about anyone thinking that Hillary and Lewinsky should be buds standing in some sort of solidarity.  It's about how Hillary's record of treating women can and will be used to show a conflict in her political platforms on women.  

The problem isn't that Hillary the Wife had unkind things to say about Lewinsky or Flowers or Jones or the rest of the accusers.  It's that she was part of the group that ruthlessly worked to discredit and demean these women.  As Hillary the Politician, those past actions have consequences.  Sure, it may seem unfair that she's being judged for her husband's misconducts, but that's the way it goes when she's a candidate for a major political office, especially when she's campaigning on a platform for women and making speeches about how women should be believed when they reveal they are victims of sexual violence despite her historical record on this.  

It's not that it's taken 20 years to work out a way to blame Hillary. It's that it's taken 20 years for her to be a political candidate on a national scale where what she says matters greatly and for the conversation to move beyond dinner parties and women's studies courses to a potential national attack campaign.  The way we think about victims of sexual harassment and violence today is also different than how we thought about it 20 years ago.  

This article is a decent primer of the issue.  

If it's about optics, as you seem to be saying, then I'm not finding the words coming from Trump to be a credible threat, as he is 1000 x worse on misogyny, sexual assault, and cheating on his wives, having committed these actions himself rather than be guilty of being a cuckolded spouse. I mean, when your ex-wife once accused you of rape, you're not going to be able to credibly go on the attack here.

If he tries to use this attack, it will backfire on him spectacular fashion. Even the women interviewed in your linked article say that. Here is an article demonstrating why at the top of the list of googling "trump, women". 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Tulsi Gabbard backs Sanders

CHICAGO — Bernie Sanders received his highest-profile congressional endorsement yet on Sunday morning, as Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation from her post as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to back the Vermont senator in his presidential bid.

“I have taken my responsibilities as an officer of the DNC seriously, and respected the need to stay neutral in our primaries. However, after much thought and consideration, I’ve decided I cannot remain neutral and sit on the sidelines any longer,” Gabbard wrote in an email to her fellow DNC officers, obtained by POLITICO.

“There is a clear contrast between our two candidates with regard to my strong belief that we must end the interventionist, regime change policies that have cost us so much. This is not just another ‘issue.’ This is THE issue, and it’s deeply personal to me. This is why I’ve decided to resign as Vice Chair of the DNC so that I can support Bernie Sanders in his efforts to earn the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race.”

The move was first announced on “Meet the Press,” where Gabbard told moderator Chuck Todd, “As a veteran and as a soldier I’ve seen firsthand the true cost of war. I served in a medical unit during my first deployment, where every single day I saw firsthand the very high human cost of that war," said Gabbard, a veteran of the Gulf War.

"I think it’s most important for us, as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity to have a commander in chief who has foresight, exercises good judgment, who looks beyond the consequences, looks at the consequences of the actions they’re looking to take, before they take those actions, so we don’t continue to find ourselves in these failures that have resulted in chaos in the Middle East and so much loss of life.”

Powerful language. And quitting a party leadership position to back an almost certain loser, that's conviction.

[TrackerNeil]

 

37 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'll give you the 2008 primary, but it's not what I meant and you already know it because we've had this conversation before.

I'm completely baffled why you insist that this isn't going to be an issue.  It's already been brought up by the opposing party and the probable GOP nominee has said that he'll continue hitting her on this when he's facing off with her.  There have been plenty of articles about it that I've previously linked.  We already know that some of Bill's victims have joined up with Super PACS in order to attack Hillary on this.  There is a lot more money that goes into attacking a presidential candidate than a senatorial one.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems as though you're conceding that the only time Hillary has been an a "national ballot" this hasn't been an issue for her. If that is so, it seems you and I agree that,although there is a limited dataset, what data we do have seem to indicate that Monicagate (or whatever we're calling it now) is not really much of an issue for Hillary these days, if it ever was. 

And to try to address your bafflement, I don't think this is an issue because there's little or no evidence that Democrats today are voting based on what happened between Bill and Monica twenty years ago. Sure, there will be plenty of talk, but the real question is, will it sway votes? Has it ever? Lots of people talked about Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, but that didn't seem to move the needle much in the final analysis. It doesn't matter what the chattering classes are talking about; it matters what's actually moving votes.

Obviously, we're not going to know until after the election why people voted the way they did, if we even know then. Perhaps at that time evidence will arise that voters really cared about this issue. Until the evidence is in, however, I'm skeptical.

[Shryke]

14 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Tulsi Gabbard backs Sanders

 

 

Powerful language. And quitting a party leadership position to back an almost certain loser, that's conviction.

Resigning from the DNC and backing Sanders over foreign policy is .... well, that's an interesting choice.

[Shryke]

So today Trump has diverged from his usual policy of retweeting white supremicists to instead retweeting a quote from Mussolini. 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-post-likening-him-to-mussolini/

Quote

 

Mr. Trump, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said he was unaware that it had been a quote from Mussolini. But he didn’t seem to care.

“It’s a very good quote,” said Mr. Trump. “I didn’t know who said it, but what difference does it make if it was Mussolini or somebody else — it’s a very good quote.”

Asked whether he wanted to be associated with Mr. Mussolini, Mr. Trump replied, ‘No, I want to be associated with interesting quotes.” And he added, “Hey, it got your attention, didn’t it?”

 

 

And hilariously it all seems to have been an attempt by Gawker to make this happen as they created an account in December to tweet Mussolini quotes at Trump to see what would happen. The account was even called @ilduce2016 and the AV is a hilarious picture of Mussolini with Trump's hair.

http://gawker.com/how-we-fooled-donald-trump-into-retweeting-benito-musso-1761795039

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If their votes are the difference that get him into the White House, why should he care what they believe in, as long as they vote for him?

I'd hope that he would care (and as Kal notes, he evidently did care back in 2000) because getting support from white supremacists suggests you're offering support to them in return.

But you've missed the point, anyway. Trump's not saying he doesn't care who supports him. He's claiming that somehow or other he doesn't know enough about white supremacists to decide whether he wants their support. That implies that he might, hypothetically, care enough to reject it, if only he knew more about them.

What is it that he doesn't know, which would allow him to answer this tricky question? Apparently he knew it in 2000, and knew it when he was asked the other day, but he's now forgotten it. But he does know it would be wrong to condemn them without knowing more: which is a shame because he's been very happy - eager, event - to condemn Mexicans and Muslims without the same care. 

[Dr. Pepper]

18 minutes ago, alguien said:

If it's about optics, as you seem to be saying, then I'm not finding the words coming from Trump to be a credible threat, as he is 1000 x worse on misogyny, sexual assault, and cheating on his wives, having committed these actions himself rather than be guilty of being a cuckolded spouse. I mean, when your ex-wife once accused you of rape, you're not going to be able to credibly go on the attack here.

If he tries to use this attack, it will backfire on him spectacular fashion. Even the women interviewed in your linked article say that. Here is an article demonstrating why at the top of the list of googling "trump, women". 

I agree, it's hypocritical coming from Trump, but that doesn't stop him nor does his hypocrisy seem to sway his own supporters.  

The problem would be, in my opinion, these specific sort of attacks against Clinton framed in this way might serve to depress voter turnout.  It's not like I've suggested that Democratic voters are suddenly going to turn to Trump.  It's that these attacks serve to make Hillary appear equal in terribleness with Trump.  Lies, changes views, warmonger, terrible record with women...that much noise and it starts to get hard for the average voter who might only be semi-informed to tell the difference between the two and those who might have voted Democratic will stay home instead.  

I certainly haven't said it would be the ONLY issue that would sway would-be voters, just that it will be an issue.  I do think it will be a bigger issue than people like Tracker seem to think (it's not comparable to Obama's Bill Ayers), especially because Hillary has a serious problem with millennial voters.  I also think it will be a bigger issue than people like Tracker suggest because it's a lot more accessible to voters than whether or not an email was classified when it was sent or parsing through the lengthy hearings on Benghazi or critically examining her voting record.  It's like how swift boat wasn't the single thing that sunk John Kerry's campaign, but it took up a lot of air time and created a lot of noise and was a contributing factor.  

The candidate really needs to have something extra to balance out the negative coming from the other side.  Obama had charisma and could claim that he opposed the Iraq war, which set him apart from his opposition and could overshadow any other controversy, even those manufactured from the birthers.  I'm not sure that Hillary has that balancing factor, so these attacks on her based on her record with women are possibly going to hurt more than what her ardent supporters are expecting.  

[Jace, Extat]

10 hours ago, sologdin said:

how courageous to speak against this villainy where no one else will!

you attempt to transform the debate into a referendum on the personality of the so-called 'PC' 'SJW'--whereas the question presented was crypt's claim of aloofness even while invoking the routine conservative topoi of entitlement and persecution, as well as a snidely proto-fascist producerism.  these are all indicia of lumpenized antisocial nihilism, as is your coarse dismissiveness of the actual arguments made--such as the critique of the aporetic conflation of progressive positions with fundamentalist ones.

would you care to revise & resubmit a position that is actually relevant? i for one doubt that any voter will go rightwing populist because a leftist argues against gender privilege, say; that's just silly, causality reversed, tautological.  (if any words in my post are insignificant to you, get a dictionary.  FFS.  am sick of indolent monosyllabics who can't be arsed to look something up.  oh, but your brain is already perfect! the defect is obviously mine for disturbing that perfection with an impossible novelty!)

Holy shit! I understood all of that!

Either I just spontaneously became a genius, or pure contempt has formed a bridge over which our mindbrains can communicate effectively.

It's a tossup at this point.

[alguien]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I agree, it's hypocritical coming from Trump, but that doesn't stop him nor does his hypocrisy seem to sway his own supporters.  

The problem would be, in my opinion, these specific sort of attacks against Clinton framed in this way might serve to depress voter turnout.  It's not like I've suggested that Democratic voters are suddenly going to turn to Trump.  It's that these attacks serve to make Hillary appear equal in terribleness with Trump.  Lies, changes views, warmonger, terrible record with women...that much noise and it starts to get hard for the average voter who might only be semi-informed to tell the difference between the two and those who might have voted Democratic will stay home instead.  

I certainly haven't said it would be the ONLY issue that would sway would-be voters, just that it will be an issue.  I do think it will be a bigger issue than people like Tracker seem to think (it's not comparable to Obama's Bill Ayers), especially because Hillary has a serious problem with millennial voters.  I also think it will be a bigger issue than people like Tracker suggest because it's a lot more accessible to voters than whether or not an email was classified when it was sent or parsing through the lengthy hearings on Benghazi or critically examining her voting record.  It's like how swift boat wasn't the single thing that sunk John Kerry's campaign, but it took up a lot of air time and created a lot of noise and was a contributing factor.  

The candidate really needs to have something extra to balance out the negative coming from the other side.  Obama had charisma and could claim that he opposed the Iraq war, which set him apart from his opposition and could overshadow any other controversy, even those manufactured from the birthers.  I'm not sure that Hillary has that balancing factor, so these attacks on her based on her record with women are possibly going to hurt more than what her ardent supporters are expecting.  

Gotcha. I dunno. I think this line of attack against HRC would be more effective from someone like Rubio or Cruz, both of whom, despite some abhorrent proposed policies, seem to have scandal-free home lives. And Trump makes Bill Clinton look like a squeaky clean choirboy. 

As I understand it, the DNC and Clinton's campaign in particular have saved up quite a bit for the general and are more than ready to dust off the museum of skeletons in Trump's closet if things go that way. 

The maddening thing is, if Bernie were to win the primary, I still think Trump would have ammo against him on that score. I have no doubt that he'd drudge up Sander's 45-year-old gender essay with its bits on rape fantasy and parade its out-of-context soundbites (such as "A woman enjoys intercourse with her man—as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously") on Twitter for people to read.

[Ormond]

Chris Christie's endorsement has gotten Christine Whitman to say she would vote for Hillary Clinton if Trump got the nomination. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/christie-whitman-chris-christie-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/2016/02/26/id/716361/

This scathing column about Trump by Mona Charen (a columnist whose views I usually can't stand) was posted in the Omaha World-Herald today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431856/donald-trump-stop-him-now?target=author&tid=1838

Such things will probably have no effect on Trump's base. I just hope Whitman sticks by her guns if Trump really does get the nomination. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Nestor,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JlWQGvSBTI&feature=youtu.be

Do you not see how a compressed version of this could be used against HRC? Fair or not, real or made up bullshit, Republicans will attack HRC from every direction. Their only hope to defeat her, especially if Trump is their nominee, is to drag her down into the mud and depress turnout, as Dr. Pepper has laid out.

51 minutes ago, alguien said:

Gotcha. I dunno. I think this line of attack against HRC would be more effective from someone like Rubio or Cruz, both of whom, despite some abhorrent proposed policies, seem to have scandal-free home lives. And Trump makes Bill Clinton look like a squeaky clean choirboy. 

The attacks don't need to come from the nominee. The RNC and Super PACs can handle the political hit jobs. And for whatever reason, attacks against Trump have not been effective. Now I personally think that will change in the General, as things become more serious and Trump's supporters make up a smaller portion of the electorate, but it remains to be seen. The dynamic that's problematic in a Trump-HRC campaign is that one person is a total outsider while the other is the living definition of an establishment candidate, and I fear enough people might want to give a finger to the establishment, regardless of party. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I think Sanders made a terrible mistake in deciding not to try very hard in SC. Hillary, off the heals of a 50 point margin of victory, has so much momentum going into Super Tuesday, and I'm seeing a lot of polling data where she will likely beat Sanders by 20 point margins in a number of places.

Come Wednesday morning, if Sanders gets blown out of the water he should suspend his campaign. A long, drawn out primary helps no one if your goal is to see a Democrat still holding the WH come January 2017.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Hillary conceded early June, and Obama won one of the biggest victories since 1984, so I disagree with that assessment.