IheartIheartTesla Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I routinely get e-mails from Obama (who calls me 'friend' for some reason) and Sanders (who calls me 'Tesla' except replace Tesla with my real name, for some reason), but I have yet to receive an email from Clinton herself. She may have a superior ground game because her opponent isn't trying, but I wonder if her team has received access to the Bernie donor list or even the general DNC donor list? Me and others should be getting personalized e-mails from her but we havent yet. Its a small matter but I think underscores the fact that her team is letting their foot off the gas pedal a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 49 minutes ago, SerPaladin said: If I was running the campaign, I would have her map out a detailed policy position on a narrow-ish topic every three or four days. Go DEEP on America's relationship with the EU, on spurring Job Growth, on engaging with Russia, on LGBT policy, on ISIS, on abortion, on Israel, on race relations/ police, on trade, on the FED interest rates, on veterans health care, on NASA, on and on and on. Flood the zone, put so much policy content on the table every few days that there is no breathing room on the news shows for Trump antics or for her own scandals. Campaign management types HATE to make firm policy statements, because they are afraid of alienating one voter group or another. Flooding the zone with hard policy positions would be hazardous in any other election cycle. But Trump can't handle specifics. Even if Clinton lost a few people at the margins of the abortion debate, for example, Trump would be backpedaling and reacting and likely contradicting himself. He would lose more. It would be easy for her to do this, since nearly all that information is on her website already. That's no excuse of course; who goes to a campaign website? But it wouldn't be hard for Clinton to start covering the details more in her speeches and releasing a study stream of press releases. I don't think that's all she needs to do, but having a more affirmative case for why she should President would be good. In other news, Evan McMullin has gotten himself onto 9 states' ballots so far: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. He seems to mostly be a bust, outside maybe Utah, but every Trump voter he pulls is helpful; especially in Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 does anyone actually read the campaign emails? and who are all of these numbnuts who change their opinion from poll to poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Trumps gains in the last month are just republicans deciding to vote for him after all. Turns out he isn't that toxic to them, they just want you to think he's toxic to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerPaladin Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 29 minutes ago, Fez said: It would be easy for her to do this, since nearly all that information is on her website already. That's no excuse of course; who goes to a campaign website? But it wouldn't be hard for Clinton to start covering the details more in her speeches and releasing a study stream of press releases. I don't think that's all she needs to do, but having a more affirmative case for why she should President would be good. Website pronouncements do not drive the news cycles. If she wants to get Trump and e-mail and the Clinton Foundation out of the conversation, she needs to fill the conversation with something else. Make a speech on a controversial-ish topic every Thursday or Friday, to drive the conversation on the weekend shows. Trump's position on immigration is so bad? Fine, tell America your plan for Mexican immigrants and Muslim immigrants and skilled visa-seekers and refugees. One big focused speech, no other topics, don't get caught up digressing, don't let the anchors throw wacky hypotheticals Then, on Monday or Tuesday each week, a smaller topic with less moving parts, but that she can blow Trump out of the water with. Start with something like China in the South China Sea..Repeat for 9 weeks, big policy Friday, watch Trump struggle to get airtime. Airtime for Trump is like a bad pantsuit for Hillary, he cannot exist without it. Can she make 9 strong policy speeches that break ground in some new way? And have another 6 to fill the mid-week on weeks where there isn't a debate? And prep for the debates, too? She says she can. If she's right, it's the best way to overwhelm the orange goblin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerPaladin Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 36 minutes ago, sologdin said: does anyone actually read the campaign emails? and who are all of these numbnuts who change their opinion from poll to poll? If you are assuming the numbnuts are intellectually inquisitive, I may have found part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 41 minutes ago, sologdin said: does anyone actually read the campaign emails? and who are all of these numbnuts who change their opinion from poll to poll? Sometimes the press does, and sometimes they decide to make a story out of it. Not always though. In post-election interviews, the Obama 2012 campaign folks said that they didn't see peoples' opinions changing almost at all from August through Election Day. What they did see changing was peoples' enthusiasm about the election, which affected their likelihood of answering a poll in the first place and of passing pollsters' likely voter screen. There's no guarantee that's the case again, but it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 1 hour ago, SerPaladin said: If I was running the campaign, I would have her map out a detailed policy position on a narrow-ish topic every three or four days. Go DEEP on America's relationship with the EU, on spurring Job Growth, on engaging with Russia, on LGBT policy, on ISIS, on abortion, on Israel, on race relations/ police, on trade, on the FED interest rates, on veterans health care, on NASA, on and on and on. Flood the zone, put so much policy content on the table every few days that there is no breathing room on the news shows for Trump antics or for her own scandals. Clinton has talked at length about her policy positions; vagueness about these sorts of details is not one of her failings. In any case, news about another Clinton speech on ISIS isn't going to draw media attention away from one of Trump's stunts. It's just the nature of the beast. As far as Clinton's "scandals", I think to some extent that's baked in. Even though Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime in her life, it is her fate to be the constant subject of scrutiny by those who are sure that, if they just keep digging, they will unearth the game-changing scandal that has eluded them for twenty-five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 50 minutes ago, sologdin said: does anyone actually read the campaign emails? I sometimes do. Right now, its ActBlue that is talking about Trump gaining in the polls, but they are interested in down-ballot races and are concerned it wont be the blowout previously predicted. I'm just puzzled why donor info is not being shared with the Clinton campaign that's all. Sometimes those e-mails are scare-mongering, but sometimes they can be a motivation to donate or knock on doors too (indeed, they ask for phone bankers frequently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerPaladin Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Clinton has talked at length about her policy positions; vagueness about these sorts of details is not one of her failings. In any case, news about another Clinton speech on ISIS isn't going to draw media attention away from one of Trump's stunts. It's just the nature of the beast. As "just another speech", I agree. As part of a larger, regular strategy to create an informed electorate, I bet she'd get traction. Right now, it's just a mish-mosh of speeches and photo ops. As far as Clinton's "scandals", I think to some extent that's baked in. Even though Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime in her life, it is her fate to be the constant subject of scrutiny by those who are sure that, if they just keep digging, they will unearth the game-changing scandal that has eluded them for twenty-five years. Considering her numbers ebb and flow with new revelations, I do not agree. She's got a certain number baked in, something like 40% think she's the devil, and 40% say she's never been charged. But we are past the 80% of people who have strong feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said: What specifically should Clinton be doing, then? Making sure that people likely to vote for her, and the party tail, are registered able and motivated to vote. Question is how important the news cycle is at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 It's rather mind blowing that Clinton gets destroyed for each and every one of her "scandals," even the ones she clearly had no part in and most frustratingly the ones that are totally made up, but Trump effectively gets to skate past all this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-scandals/474726/ This is one of the clearest examples of sexism in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 3 hours ago, SerPaladin said: Considering her numbers ebb and flow with new revelations, I do not agree. She's got a certain number baked in, something like 40% think she's the devil, and 40% say she's never been charged. But we are past the 80% of people who have strong feelings. Which is why I said "to some extent." 2 hours ago, Seli said: Making sure that people likely to vote for her, and the party tail, are registered able and motivated to vote. Question is how important the news cycle is at this point. Clinton has hundreds and hundreds of people at the state level, doing just that, and has for months. You're not suggesting anything Clinton isn't already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Obama just nominated a judge to the DC circuit who would be the first Muslim judge, will trump take the bait? obama has had 329 judges confirmed, has 55 awaiting action, given that Muslims are about 0.9% of the population it's a little surprising he hasn't nominated any before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 9 hours ago, SerPaladin said: She's been letting Trump have the spotlight, hoping for Trump to do something dumb that makes him lose. He's been doing something dumb fortnightly for almost a year and a half as a candidate. Old school electoral physics do not apply to him. To be fair, Johnson in 1964 ran on a ridiculously vague platform, that centred around him not being Barry Goldwater (Johnson knew full well that he himself was not well-liked, but that people were terrified of Goldwater). I think that's what Hillary is trying to emulate, albeit with a much more polarised electorate. Nixon in 1972 (the last time a campaign faced an opposition trainwreck of this magnitude) similarly ran a pretty low-key campaign. Nixon was also well aware that no-one really liked him - but the onus was on demonising McGovern. I wouldn't recommend Hillary breaks into the RNC headquarters though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 8 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: I sometimes do. Right now, its ActBlue that is talking about Trump gaining in the polls, but they are interested in down-ballot races and are concerned it wont be the blowout previously predicted. I'm just puzzled why donor info is not being shared with the Clinton campaign that's all. Sometimes those e-mails are scare-mongering, but sometimes they can be a motivation to donate or knock on doors too (indeed, they ask for phone bankers frequently) Speaking of act blue, did you know there is a convenient link that evenly divides your donation between all thirty seven competitive house seats held by republicans? https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/competitive_house_races?refcode=prince the more you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Media grills Clinton on emails still even though the FBI did not press charges, yet allow Trump to slide, yet again, when spewing lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-pam-bondi-scandal-227823 Trump's pay-for-play scandal intensifies The Republican nominee has denied any wrongdoing in his donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Harakiri said: Media grills Clinton on emails still even though the FBI did not press charges, yet allow Trump to slide, yet again, when spewing lies. Not only that, but in a stunning display of sexist behavior, Matt Lauer was deferential to Trump, never once interrupting him but constantly cut off and interrupted Clinton throughout the forum, or so I heard, I couldn't watch as I was stuck at work. But it sounds bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 2 hours ago, lokisnow said: Not only that, but in a stunning display of sexist behavior, Matt Lauer was deferential to Trump, never once interrupting him but constantly cut off and interrupted Clinton throughout the forum, or so I heard, I couldn't watch as I was stuck at work. But it sounds bad. Very much show. He's a douchebag. Still would love to hear people point to that supposed liberal media bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.