User 463088
Banned
Just like their damning email about Hillary's ear piece.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
And yet, the media won't stop talking about her emails.
So whether they're damning or not doesn't seem to be changing the narrative much.
Republicans are also well aware that 30-40% of their party are bigots. I mean, it was pretty fucking obvious once Trump got elected to be the nominee. Saying this doesn't damage her relationship with other republicans so long as she ties these supporters to Trump, and that is exactly what she is doing. The Republicans want to find a way to get rid of these hateful bigots in their party or at least marginalize them. Tying them all to Trump and have him lose is their best option right now.
As for your second paragraph, I think that is nonsense. If a person hates both candidates and the deciding factor is who remained the most civil, that person is going to vote for Trump because Hilary correctly stated that a good deal of Trump's followers are bigots? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Again, what is important is the overarching narrative for the candidate. This will not stick with Clinton because it doesn't fit with her overarching narrative. Trump's overarching narrative, on the other hand, is this. Is being a erratic candidate who delves in hate speech to appeal to the worst of the population. This will keep that in the news cycle and further re-enforce peoples' opinions that he is a bigot who riles up his base with hate speech.
All Wikileaks (Assange) has said is that they "Have material related to the Clinton campaign" and "A variety of organizations."
I understand the concern, but coming from a known hype-man like Julian Assange, that really doesn't sound very bullish. Remember, this dude straight up told Anderson Cooper on national television that they had material that would indict Hillary Clinton. Of course that amounted to a pile of nothing.
But you are right, it will probably bring back the discussion of emails. I imagine that they have... something they will inevitably release. But the fact that they aren't hyping it up like crazy and even mentioning things beyond Clinton in the same breathe has me thinking it's nothing. That's why it's good to get other narratives going, particularly ones that are bad for Trump.
minor effort
Banned
https://twitter.com/PRyan/status/774708981533114368
You can call this out, but you've been silent for months on everything Trump has said.
Paul Ryan said:
You can call this out, but you've been silent for months on everything Trump has said.
TestOfTide
Banned
Wikileaks has been embarrassing themselves too much to have any real influence on the media cycle.
They have nothing or next to nothing on Hillary. If they didn't they would have leaked something again by now.
"The media won't stop talking about her emails."
[News comes out that distracts the media from talking about her emails.]
"This is really bad for Hillary."
To be fair, Paul Ryan has called out a good deal of what Trump has said. The problem is, after all that calling out he still says he supports the candidate.
metalslimer
Member
Actually for most of the week the focus was off the emails and the WaPo editorial board said the media needed to stop harping in it.
And of course all Republicans are going to push back because they know the sad truth is they appeal to the deplorables to get elected.
No, they won't vote or vote third party. She's gotta figure out a way to make herself more palatable than she is now. Or are we also going to be pretend that she doesn't have a real issue with likability and trustworthiness?
And to your point about overarching narrative (which I agree with completely), I don't see how this helps hers. She should be focusing her attacks on his rhetoric and hateful speech, not his supporters. Calling out voters never works out.
Yeeees no effect at all. Like, they had no effect on the DNC or anything. And temporarily halting email talk, which the media will return to after more emails are released, is a victory somehow? What?
User 463088
Banned
Trump Campaign Conference Call/Response with Media
Hahahahahahahaha.
minor effort
Banned
He has in the past, but he's been pretty quiet since the convention, even though Trump himself impugning segments of the American populace hasn't stopped.
whyamihere
Banned
Trump Campaign Conference Call/Response with Media
Yeah, I can only imagine how this'll go down going forward.
I don't think it's hard to imagine at all.
Just a question of how much traction it gets.
StopMakingSense
Member
Man, Sopan Deb should have asked about Nuclear Warming (he's the source of the quote from last night)
You mean the shit they've been saying anyway?
They've already called Hillary a bigot and claims she's playing the race card etc. This is business as usual.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
LOL - I'm legit laughing.
What's hilarious is that a lot of Trump's lingering support don't seem to realize that a con of that support is that they have lost even the pretense of having the moral high ground.
TestOfTide
Banned
No effect at all. The only people who protested at the DNC were going to be petulant children with or without the DNC leaks. And quickly the media decided that they didn't care about the DNC leaks once the actual convention started.
And Hillary has chances to say more things that will distract the media from the emails.
When has anything ever had to be accurate for it to stick?
No reason for her to throw more fuel on the fire.
Ask DWS if the email release had an effect on her job. No, it wasn't the only strike against her... But it ended up being the last.
I hope Paul Ryan recognizes one day the awful groups trump is appealing to. Dude does not recognize that trump is appealing to white nationalist, racists and etc like david duke.
Why? She is winning and has a demographic advantage. She is not going to change her likability and trustworthiness during the campaign. People aren't going to change their mind on this and can only be done in a different context. That context being when she is President of the United States.
And please, people aren't going to stay home or not vote for her because she pointed out that a good deal of Trump supporters are bigots. Why? Because it isn't going to stick because it doesn't fit with her narrative and the people who are going to be voting for and the some that who are not are going to agree with her.
People aren't going to get offended by a candidate who says something true and something that they agree with. The voters aren't some sacred cow that you can't offend. Sure, saying 47% of people are lazy moochers are bad. Saying that religious people who like guns are morons is bad, but calling out racists is not bad because you are not shitting on good people. You are shitting on shitty people.
As for calling out voters never works, that is just a simple platitude. Her remark reinforced Trump's narrative of being a hateful bigot. People who agree with that narrative are not going to find that remark distasteful or offensive because they agree with it. Every Clinton voter agrees with it and a number of Republican voters also agree with it.
User 85168
Banned
He absolutely does, lol.
Yeah, pretty sure it's Trump classifying people as deportable.
whyamihere
Banned
You realize I'm fundamentally disagreeing your interpretation of how this will unfold, right?
eBay Huckster
Member
It's easy.
We, uh, kill the white man.
This is not what eBay Huckster actually believes. But, like, actually, minimize the power that white men hold in the electorate/media and you mitigate the issue.
Slurpy2k20
Member
How the fuck does she say "Donald Trump" instead of "Barack Obama" THREE TIMES, without even realizing and correcting herself afterwards? It's distracting and takes away from what she's saying.
Trump Campaign Conference Call/Response with Media
LMAO. The trump camapign can't continue to hide for the fact they are attracting awful people or groups to support trump because of his rhetroic like breitbart, mike cernovich, david duke and the KKK and etc.
User 463088
Banned
I think we all know the answer to that.
Hopefully we will see some positive polls soon. I'm afraid that we are stuck in this echo chamber and aren't realizing how bad things are really getting. I just can't fucking believe orange turd still has a chance. This reality has got to be some sick fucking joke. The media isn't even touching turds comment about shooting Iranian ships who appear hostile after repeatedly accusing Clinton of being trigger happy. Blatant miscalculation by Clinton's campaign to back down.
No, please enlighten us.
How do I think this is going to turn out? Since I haven't said it yet, I'd love to hear my opinion before I voice it or even make it.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Ras has her up by four, that's more then positive enough considering the source.
minor effort
Banned
As bad as Trump is, he's just one part of the problem. With a few exceptions, the current GOP leadership has abandoned all pretense of standing up to Trump and his movement since the convention ended. I'm sure many like Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitch McConnell know how dangerous Trump's rhetoric and proposals are, and how unqualified of a candidate he is. But they're willing to let a fascist moron occupy the Oval Office just as long as it's a Republican win.
While, let's face it, the odds of me ever voting Republican were already slim, this current election has absolutely buried and paved over any hope of me ever voting Republican in the future. They've lost me for a lifetime. And Trump himself is only partly to blame for that.
I'm sure if Trump loses, all the GOP leadership will rush to blame everything wrong with the 2016 campaign on him and him alone, letting Trump be the scapegoat for all their collective hatred and cowardice.
TestOfTide
Banned
First off Shultz isn't running for president.
Second off, Shultz was already disliked by many before the leak and she still won her primary this year.
But you know what, you're right. That leak gave the DNC an excuse to make someone as likable as Donna Brazille lead the convention instead of Shultz. That sounds like a net positive to me.
Again, last I checked the D convention caused a HUGE bounce for Hillary even with the DNC leaks.
The convention was great. The turmoil beforehand didn't have an effect on Clinton at all.
But someone did lose a job over it, and the DNC had egg on their face. That's an effect, whether you think it positive or negative.
Me taking a dump also has an effect. That doesn't mean that that effect impacts the campaign races.
Anything regarding emails has clearly had an effect on Clinton.
Wikileaks will be releasing more. They will likely have an effect on her.
TestOfTide
Banned
Yes for like 5 hours, then the narrative became about how these leaks showed that Russia was using Wikileaks to try and put their finger on the election.
And just like last time, the media will bring up the fact that Wikileaks is clearly working for Putin's interests.
Except if Wikileaks comes up again, the media can bring up how that organization has been desperately clinging to every single conspiracy theory about Clinton.
nature boy
Member
Hope the Khans return, especially if this is the strategy.
hipsterpants
Member
seeing trump supporters jump on that obama tweet is absurd. by that logic half of trump supporters = half of america, thus 100% of america supports trump.
somehow I now hate the GOP even more
somehow I now hate the GOP even more
User 463088
Banned
Buuuut what about emailssssss?
TestOfTide
Banned
Unfortunately, the Khans won't be returning because they don't want their actual jobs to be affected like last time (Mr. Khan's website was attacked).
Trump is angry at the art of the deal writer now and this is the art of the deal guy's reply to trump's recent comment about him.
https://twitter.com/tonyschwartz/status/774626529452122112
https://twitter.com/tonyschwartz/status/774626529452122112
Like others have said, one set of emails is damaging to Clinton. Those, however, are the Secretary of State/FBI emails. Those hurt Clinton and any new emails on that will hurt Clinton or at least sustain damage because it furthers her narrative.
The wikileaks emails do not because what is in them is a whole lot of nothing and every time the news talks about them what is reinforced is the idea that Putin doesn't want Clinton to be elected and would rather have Trump.
nature boy
Member
Oh..
Here it is.
How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money
Too bad, they were a very strong asset.
eBay Huckster
Member
one set of emails was damaging, the other set is only damaging in assange's coked-out deranged mind
Tranqueris
Banned
It looks like she was in that "you just pissed me off and I don't really care if I say something incorrectly" kind of place.
Meh, that Trump statement is weak and just reaffirms the need of Clinton to not back down and continue to pound the issue, just continue to tweak the message.
But they definitely shouldn't coward. The comment has been made and stick to the core message.
Let's see how this plays out tomorrow and hope Clinton surrogates work the Sunday morning shows well.
But they definitely shouldn't coward. The comment has been made and stick to the core message.
Let's see how this plays out tomorrow and hope Clinton surrogates work the Sunday morning shows well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked