Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Clinton Reacts to the Tulsa Shooting

In other news Drumpf blames Clinton for it saying her campaign has been shooting unarmed black people since 2008

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

unofan

Slate (oddly prescient) in 2000

Slate in 2008

TeachingHistory.org has this

HTH

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Hillary Tweets Questions for Drumpf

Smart move...now start trolling him and hopefully you can poke the bear into saying something stupid

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Shots. Fired.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Oh, and by the way, I guarantee all of these already have at least a page write up for all of the answers Clinton would give if asked these questions.

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Shots. Fired.

Yeah, that was like a week ago. Nobody cared.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Oh, and by the way, I guarantee all of these already have at least a page write up for all of the answers Clinton would give if asked these questions.

She better have. Otherwise, she's just throwing razor sharp boomerangs. Don't throw razor sharp boomerangs.


PS - Does anyone believe tD's kids and campaign staff (3.0?) now allow him to handle his Twitter unfiltered? ... Uh, ... wait, ... that didn't sound quite like I intended ...

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Yeah, that was like a week ago. Nobody cared.

Seriously?

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

My guess also is by tomorrow, Silver's Nowcast will show a race that is within the margin of error, if it were a single poll.

I was off a couple of days, but the Nowcast is now showing Hillary with less than a 4% advantage over Trump, which as I said if it were a single poll would be within the margin of error.

She may yet pull it together, although more and more I have my doubts because now, ground game and turnout are truly the only slim hope she has. This is problematic though, because it's obvious her base is getting less and less excited by her every minute, and while ground game (and all of the other election tropes) are supposed to be important, it did not hurt Trump one iota during the primaries. While primaries are a different animal than the general election, they are still in fact elections, and many of the same fundamentals were thought to apply throughout the winter and spring, but they did not.

For a year now people have been brushing off Trump like he was an afterthought. I did it myself from the time he announced until around the Iowa caucus. By the end of February I was certain he'd win enough delegates to claim the nomination. Idiotically I held out hope the Republican party, sensing disaster, would maneuver to steal the nomination from him. But in reality the Republican party sensed something I was fearing all along, that the county is full of people naive enough or bigoted enough, to believe a racist, fascist demagogue is the answer we need in the oval office. They no longer fear the down ballot disaster some predicted.

Whether or not Clinton wins, the Senate is probably out of reach. The house, a longshot even when Clinton was doing well, is now going to be nearly as red in January as it is today. And whatever gains were thought to be made at the state level are probably all pipe dreams now as well.

The Supreme Court is important. So I guess her election still matters. Oh yeah, I forgot also about the very future of the world, so yeah, her election really does matter.

[unofan]

unofan

Slate (oddly prescient) in 2000

Slate in 2008

TeachingHistory.org has this

HTH

The Slate articles basically say they have no clue what would happen, and the other one basically says the party would pick someone new, but it'd be up to the electors. None of them say anything about invalidating early votes or changing ballots on the fly.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I would literally vote for any of you before I voted for Trump. Any of you. President Fresh Fish, come on down. President Old Pio, rise up. Any of you.

If James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson could somehow spawn a child, and the baby, coincidentally named Franklin Pierce, suffered from a profound case fetal alcohol syndrome, I'd sooner vote for him before I'd want Trump elected. None one who has been at least a somewhat serious contender for president in my lifetime would be a worse choice. I think that would even include other notable racists like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I'm not sure people underestimated Trump so much as they underestimated voters' tendency to use any means necessary to confirm their existing party bias. Even on this board, which is presumably populated by college educated people (none of which will admit to voting for Trump), there are many who argue that there is no real difference between the candidates insofar as fitness for office is concerned. The false equivalencies are alive and flourishing on this site. And if anything, Trump has probably been even more bigoted and immature than most expected when the primaries started. We all knew he was a narcissist carnival barker, but I had no idea he would say such bigoted things or that he would be so childish in his analysis. So he hasn't been better than expected, he's been worse. But the voters are so chained to their prior biases that they look right past his idiocy and clutch onto the LIAR label that has been pounded into their heads for so many years. I just did not expect that dynamic to be as powerful as it has proven to be.

[SJHovey]

I'm not sure people underestimated Trump so much as they underestimated voters' tendency to use any means necessary to confirm their existing party bias. Even on this board, which is presumably populated by college educated people (none of which will admit to voting for Trump), there are many who argue that there is no real difference between the candidates insofar as fitness for office is concerned. The false equivalencies are alive and flourishing on this site. And if anything, Trump has probably been even more bigoted and immature than most expected when the primaries started. We all knew he was a narcissist carnival barker, but I had no idea he would say such bigoted things or that he would be so childish in his analysis. So he hasn't been better than expected, he's been worse. But the voters are so chained to their prior biases that they look right past his idiocy and clutch onto the LIAR label that has been pounded into their heads for so many years. I just did not expect that dynamic to be as powerful as it has proven to be.

Or, people underestimated the number of voters angry enough to use their vote to "flip the bird" at what they view as the power centers of the country. A vote for Trump is a giant eff you, and the more hysterical everyone becomes at his prospects, the better the vote feels.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

A vote for Trump - a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a man who made his fortunes painstakingly off the back of a $100m endowment, who's often when sued used his massive resources to run roughshod over his accusers in court, who's a corporate shill, who's used his vast fortunes to play the Wall Street game, the corporate game and to foster political favors for decades, who's filed bankruptcy several times over, who's had several failed businesses, who's stolen money from his charity to payoff lawsuits, who's hobnobbed with the wealthiest of the wealthy for decades, I could probably go on - is an eff you to whom exactly?

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

A vote for Trump - a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a man who made his fortunes painstakingly off the back of a $100m endowment, who's often when sued used his massive resources to run roughshod over his accusers in court, who's a corporate shill, who's used his vast fortunes to play the Wall Street game, the corporate game and to foster political favors for decades, who's filed bankruptcy several times over, who's had several failed businesses, who's stolen money from his charity to payoff lawsuits, who's hobnobbed with the wealthiest of the wealthy for decades, I could probably go on - is an eff you to whom exactly?

America. Civilized society. The entire first amendment.