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

[Kepler]

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

She also has/had "I'm with her." which evidently isn't/didn't work either.

"I'm with her" was supposed to be "We can do it." In all honesty they should just have gone with that. That would have resonated with women.

They should play off the Clinton prosperity far more explicitly. "We did it before and we can do it again."

Also, they have a cute white grandbaby! Exploit that little monster.

Finally, they should project her strength with those great Situation Room photos getting bin Laden etc. They were scared off it by BENGHAZI!!!11! but nobody cares about Benghazi except the deep-enders who will never vote for her. Make her into a Madge Thatch she wolf with five rows of teeth and acid for blood. There is a segment of doltish males who tear up for this kind of pablum. They're usually solid GOP but in their hearts they know Trump is a puss who has never fought his own battle or faced anything resembling accountability in his life, and they would love to slap on the breastplate and greaves and ride into battle to protect Lady Liberty and all that childish garbage that brings Marine recruiters to orgasm.

There are lots of directions she can go, but she needs an emotional appeal to the Great Unwashed.

[Kepler]

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

Bill "founder of the Never Trump" Krystol's mouthpiece, "The Weekly Standard" actually put this out?

Natty Review hates Trump, but WS really needs the mouthbreather types to fluff their circulation numbers. They can't afford to go full #nevercinammonhitler.

My God, though, if he loses they'll be gnashing at his corpse like Anne Coulter at an endangered species buffet.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Bill "founder of the Never Trump" Krystol's mouthpiece, "The Weekly Standard" actually put this out?

Electoral Mapmaking: Five paths to victory for Trump.


A Trump line from the article that I hadn't seen before:
"It used to be, cars were made in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now the cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."

Good article. Pretty much sums up what I've heard on all the polling to this point. If he "wins" the debate it's going to put all 5 paths in play and the more paths in play for him the better shot he's got.

[The Sicatoka]

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

Also, they have a cute white grandbaby! Exploit that little monster. ...

There are lots of directions she can go, but she needs an emotional appeal to the Great Unwashed.

The "litlle monster" is a plus, but also a reminder that she's grandmotherly. (Meanwhile, Trump has the hot wife and a ten year old.) Add in that the daughter and son-in-law, at least in that photo, are shall we politely say less than completely photogenic isn't a positive.

You last sentence, "the Great Unwashed", is a problem.
She's already made an emotion appeal toward (at?) them ... calling them "deplorable".

[The Sicatoka]

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

Good article. Pretty much sums up what I've heard on all the polling to this point. If he "wins" the debate it's going to put all 5 paths in play and the more paths in play for him the better shot he's got.

Figured you would like that one.

But you said "wins" the debate. All he has to do is not lose. Why? His expectations are so low.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

You last sentence, "the Great Unwashed", is a problem.
She's already made an emotion appeal toward (at?) them ... calling them "deplorable".

She'd never get them anyway. 42% are locked into Trump unless he does something stupid. That's why she has to giver her base every reason to vote for her. I don't think Democrats come out for fear. That's the other sides mantra.

[burd]

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

She'd never get them anyway. 42% are locked into Trump unless he does something stupid. That's why she has to giver her base every reason to vote for her. I don't think Democrats come out for fear. That's the other sides mantra.

What?

[ScoobyDoo]

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

What?

Nothing he's done has been stupid enough. Read the polls. If anything for a lot of his base it's been smart.

[The Rube]

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

What?

I'm guessing he means does something that is considered stupid by his base voting bloc. Like embrace anything that St Hillary loves.

[burd]

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

Nothing he's done has been stupid enough. Read the polls. If anything for a lot of his base it's been smart.

So if it's stupider, it's smarter for his base?

I suppose I should use a smiley, but I'm just having fun with the absurdity of it all.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

So if it's stupider, it's smarter for his base?

No. It seems to depend on the kind of stupid. I can use a different word if you like but the premise doesn't change.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

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

Early morning platitude drivel alert:

The world is becoming a blended society, and the momentum will not slow; nor should it. It is our best hope for peace, I think, is that our children become increasingly international, working abroad or for companies that have substantial international interests, marrying persons who either have significant international ties or are citizens of other countries, creating families with mixed international and/or religious heritage, and forming close friendships through work and play with other young people from Korea, India, Quatar, Turkey and Jordan, and so forth . And this blending is not just happening in our cites, as it has for hundreds of years; it is happening in the global marketplace. There is a difference between expecting Poles, Irish, and Lebanese to come to this country and assimilate here, learning OUR language and OUR traditions, and getting to know them in their own homes and marketplaces, where we learn what their business, religious, and entertainment culture is all about. This is our hope, IMO, because it is harder to hate and fear a people you understand and have formed important relationships with. Isolationism, on the other hand, estranges.

Terrorism is more of a problem a blended world society, since there will be more bad guys among us and since conflicts are not just localized to other, usually developing areas of the world where we have become involved in order to fuel our cars and stock our supermarkets. So there will be those who will try to capitalize on the fear of these bad guys from other tribes order to grab power. Trump is one of these people. His view of our role as a nation is an extension of his own view as a person: it is all about what is good for me. It appeals to a simplistic, tribalistic and anachronistic way of thinking that will certainly make us less secure, not more. And he is getting support because we are hard wired and have not yet fully emerged from the cave.

something-able drivel alert!

I don't disagree with much of what you say. Mrs. McBadgerton travels to those and many more regularly for business and consequently I have even been to some of those countries. We have friends, many very dear, in many places, nearly all of them living in much less egalitarian societies, but most certainly I agree that travel is one of the best ways to broaden one's views. But I digress...

If some move toward globalization is the natural goal of all right thinking people, then as a practical matter, I don't see how a very strong and careful exercise in prudence isn't the best course. Let's suppose for a moment that a bad actor or two slip through among our Syrian friends and manage to carry out some sort of major success. Whether by design, random chance, sheer bad luck, or lack of due diligence doesn't matter, but rather, what do we suppose happens politically in this country? Who gains power? Who has the high ground of "I told you this would happen?" If it's not Hitler Trump, it's Hitler someone else, but as we've experienced, there will be a demand from the populace to be kept "safe" and there will most certainly, as ever, be someone standing by to provide it by any or all means. Look at Germany, where the reaction to results of Merkel's open door policy now threatens to set back a bastion of democratic liberalism by generations. Perhaps care should be taken to sustain progress as well.

As merely a point of debate I'd point out that there's this often used argument that we as individuals are statistically really in no danger from these "other groups, or tribes" and that any worry is stupidly unfounded in an irrational fear of the "other". It's a very reasonable point, but I don't hear this same principle being applied much when the other "group" is the police, a group whom apparently, we should in many cases fear. The risk of any member of the US population being shot by cops is statistically nonexistent, the same for any given minority population member, and the chances of being shot in any questionable action or outright murdered is a very large amount less that that. Yet it's unbearable, we have hysteria, and we're righteously setting cities on fire in reaction to, admittedly horrific, individual incidents. Personally I don't disagree it's a problem that requires action, but it's possible the argument is a bit inconsistent in it's application. I don't doubt that thought might be enormously unpopular.

[Handyman]

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

Well, looking like Ohio is going Trump. North Carolina is gone. Colorado is in play. Iowa is gone. Wisconsin is even more in play than Colorado. Florida is even more in play than Wisconsin. Explain to me how Hillary has it in the bag again?

And after Hillary blows the debate by destroying him with complex facts and command of the issues. **** that 75% of the electorate doesn't give a **** about. This race is all but over.

Since when is Wisconsin "in play"? Clinton is up in every poll there according to 538. One poll has them tied and that is Survey Monkey. You might want to research this stuff first.

Oh and they still have Colorado going to her 70/30. If you call Sconnie and Colorado in play I call Georgia in play and Nevada. (as is NC BTW)

You dont get to have it both ways.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Since when is Wisconsin "in play"? Clinton is up in every poll there according to 538. One poll has them tied and that is Survey Monkey. You might want to research this stuff first.

Oh and they still have Colorado going to her 70/30. If you call Sconnie and Colorado in play I call Georgia in play and Nevada. (as is NC BTW)

You dont get to have it both ways.

Nevada should be a lock for Hillary. It's definitely in play. And yes, I agree, Georgia is in play. What I am saying is it's irrelevant how many he has to defend. It doesn't matter. She spends bucket loads of cash on ads and all of them I've seen are anti-Trump ads. They're not working. If anything they're moving things his way.

Never accuse me of wanting things both ways. I don't operate that way.

EDIT: North Carolina is gone though.

[Handyman]

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

If North Carolina is gone then Wisconsin is a lock. Look at the numbers.. Either both are in play or neither. Just because they elected stupid people as their reps doesnt mean they vote that way all the time. Look at the nimrods we vote in. We didnt vote for Dubya despite voting for TPaw and Bachman.