Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What makes you think normal will return? It could just as likely get worse.
-
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
What makes you think normal will return? It could just as likely get worse.
BlastProcessing
Member
2020 isn't going to be normal. Curt Schilling is going to win the nomination and it's going to be fucking crazier than 2016.
TestOfTide
Banned
Nah. Schilling isn't going to run for president in 2020 after he completely fails during either the 2018 MA US Senate election or doesn't even make it through the primaries for that seat.
Even if he were to magically get that GOP senate nomination, he would still never be endorsed by Charlie Baker.
metalslimer
Member
If Trump loses the Republican party will coordinate to shut down anyone who even remotely resembles Trump's brand of know nothingness. Then again I guess it depends on Clinton's approval rating. If she is doing terribly, I guess all bets are off.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I know I'm way late on this, but I don't find Hillary's comment about "deplorables" to be an issue at all. LOL at those comparing it to Romney's 47% comment. She specifically labeled Trump supporters in the slam, and it was a true statement. That shouldn't swing independent/moderate voters in the least.
shinra-bansho
Member
How are we all today my deplorables?
Really? What District? Because the 3rd has an election this year to replace an incumbent and the cook PVI rates it "EVEN".
Just because a state is going Dem doesn't mean the battles over.
How do you do, fellow deplorables?
Hobbestetrician
Member
Both sides!
But seriously, how many times has something come out about Trump that would have sunk anyone else only to not have it mean anything? Gotta be nearing triple digits.
jack_package_200
Banned
I have been assembling shitty ikea furniture all day.
What have I missed?
What have I missed?
Spoiled Milk
Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/republicans-congress-tim-kaine-227952 [piecake]
https://twitter.com/tonyschwartz/status/774626529452122112 [mo60]
https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/774602863192510464 [natureboy]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html [Blastprocessing]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...t-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879 [Blastprocessing]
A problem is that someone could come along who combines Trump's white nationalism and authoritarianism with better dog whistles and "I actually know non-zero things about how government and world geo-politics works". I don't know who that is but I think Trump shone a pretty big spotlight on the fact that most Republican voters give two shits about "small government" , "conservative values", etc.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
All that matters is that Johnson will make america great again by making weed legal again.
Investigating whether or not Hilary's statement was true is in-line with what investigative journalist do and should be part of the story that reporters report on. The whole thing shouldn't just be about optics and the political horse race.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables/499493/
Ta-Nehisi Coates does a bit of cursory investigating in this piece, and argues that you can make the claim that half of Trump's supporters are deplorable. I doubt that we will be seeing much of this though and a whole lot more meaningless optics and horse race punditry.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
So now she's walking it back, amazing. Can you guys see why I don't believe she'd beat a decent republican nominee? So we'll go from "where is Hillary" one week to "more emails" for one more week to fallback from this for another week.
Don't get it either.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I really like that mcdonalds' answer to 4 for 4/5 for 4 deals was 2 for 5
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
What?
What decent Republican nominee would that be?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I remember when Hillary walked back 2.5% of her comments and then realized that Ben Carson and Ted Cruz (the only candidates to challenge Trump) would have beaten her in 2016.
shinra-bansho
Member
The walkback seems to be just in using the actual figure of half? Am I wrong on this?
It's like a sorry, not sorry.
It's like a sorry, not sorry.
Yep. She only regretted the "half" portion. Other than that, she doubled down.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Here's what you say: Donald Trump won the republican nomination with less than 50% of the total vote, meaning a majority of republicans disapproved of him. To this day many republicans continue to refuse to support him, including prominent respected figures such as [insert names]. Trump's campaign is being fueled by the far right as well as the alt-right, who I gave a speech about x weeks ago. And then list off some exit polls and various other information on the various bigoted things Trump supporters believe. I wouldn't bring up the Muslim immigration ban since most Americans seem to agree with him on it, but there are a whole host of other things to cite.
The point is not simply to denigrate Trump supporters, but to make regular voters even more embarrassed of Trump's camp. The other goal: to force Trump to revisit some of these issues, and watch him double down again.
The point is not simply to denigrate Trump supporters, but to make regular voters even more embarrassed of Trump's camp. The other goal: to force Trump to revisit some of these issues, and watch him double down again.
At least with any "normal" republican nominee. I'd assume the media would hold both candidates to the same standard. So yes Clinton would be going through the same shit she is now, but other candidates would be held to standard.
Lets be real. Trump isn't being held to that same standard at this moment. He's gotten a lot of leeway.
That said Clinton didn't really walk shit back. She just said she shouldn't have said half. She doubled down.
Pretty much. "I shouldn't have said half, but I stand by everything I said."
Lets be real. Trump isn't being held to that same standard at this moment. He's gotten a lot of leeway.
That said Clinton didn't really walk shit back. She just said she shouldn't have said half. She doubled down.
Pretty much. "I shouldn't have said half, but I stand by everything I said."
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean, I don't think she should have bothered walking any of it back. Explaining, losing etc.
So that was a mistake, in my view.
So that was a mistake, in my view.
She doesn't need to clarify anything. Just use this as a chance to keep tying this racist element with Trump.
I agree.
There are two things I've learned from Sanders and Trump this election that Hillary should tak to heart if she's going to go on this type of offensive.
1) If you're going to make a strong statement, make sure it's the statement you want to make. I think Hillary did this. There is a very strong argument to make that a huge swath of Trump's supporters would fit into the Basket. All sorts of things she could point to.
2) When you make that statement, stand by it. Don't do anything that resembles walking back or apologizing. It cedes high ground to your opponent and muddies the message.
We should elect based on least deplorable.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The claim that someone is "deplorable" is not something that can be fact-checked, because it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Pretending to defend the claim on an objective basis is nothing short of partisan hackery, despite BM's insistence that that would be "proper" journalism.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Hillary Clinton: I deplored them. I deplored them all. They're deplored... every single one of them. And not just the men. But the women... and the children, too. They're like animals, and I deplored them like animals! I DEPLORED THEM!
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Award goes to NYCmetsfan for being right
Now we compare the prediction to the actual statement released by Hillary Clinton later today:
For correctly predicting a reference to the KKK, Mexican deportation, attacks on Muslims, doubling down on attacking racism and bigotry, but apologizing for actually quantifying a proportion, NYCmetsfan earns a rare and coveted four swamis from the Spoiled Milk Report.
Now we compare the prediction to the actual statement released by Hillary Clinton later today:
For correctly predicting a reference to the KKK, Mexican deportation, attacks on Muslims, doubling down on attacking racism and bigotry, but apologizing for actually quantifying a proportion, NYCmetsfan earns a rare and coveted four swamis from the Spoiled Milk Report.
Incorrect. The claim was that half of Trump's supporters held particular beliefs that she found deplorable, which can be fact-checked, and has been by multiple posters.
hipsterpants
Member
I mean, I'm disappointed she backed down a bit, but I think it's better that it moves the focus from her "attacking" an unfortunately large number of our population to the fact that these losers exist and are enabled by Trump.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
He's got 85% of GOP support, currently.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ehind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate
She made it perfectly clear what she found deplorable. That is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. people. You can investigate whether or not half of Trump supporters hold one or more of those views to determine if she is telling the truth. That isn't a matter of opinion, unless you are making the claim that calling someone a racist for saying racist things and holding racist views is only an opinion and not fact.
excelsiorlef
Member
People who aren't deplorable agree that bigots are deplorable.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The fact that she finds certain beliefs deplorable can be fact checked? Surely you jest!
But she didn't refer to "certain beliefs," but to labels--"racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"--that leave a lot to personal judgment. Just look at the Coates' argument in the article Piecake linked to: In support of his claim that a large number of Trump supporters are Islamophobic, he cites a survey in which 60 percent of Trump supporters reportedly have an "unfavorable view" of Islam. But what does that mean, and does it rise to the level of "Islamophobia"? (Do you believe that the central tenets of Islam are true? If not, does that make your view "unfavorable"? If so, does that make you an Islamophobe?) Coates seems to think so.
If she had referred to specific beliefs, maybe then most people could agree on whether they fit the labels used. But even that's not a sure thing. If someone gets a job promotion because of his or her race, is that an example of racism? Does it depend on the race of the person promoted and the structural and historical facts of the society in which the promotion occurs?
In the end, what we're left with is a "fact check" that has to make a value judgment as to the significance of a belief, the meaning of the label to be applied, and whether that label applies to that belief. Only once you make those judgment calls can you turn to the numbers and do what can truly be called fact checking.
See above. You're skipping the value judgments and taking the applicability of the labels as given.
You're proving my point and not understanding the things you read all at the same time. Are you really claiming that, e.g., the classification of "Illegal immigrants should be deported" as hate speech is an objective fact about the world? And what does that have to do with denying that a racist is a racist? Nothing? Nothing.
eBay Huckster
Member
meta, even for you, this specific part of that post is a reach
balladofwindfishes
Member
Some headlines seem pretty good for the comments from today, seems like she'll be just fine from them.
Clinton was right: Trump HAS lifted up the deplorable (CNN)
Hillary Clinton Was Politically Incorrect, but She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters (the Atlantic)
Spare me the phony outrage over Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ remark (Washington Post)
Is Hillary Clinton Right About Trump Supporters? This Is What The Polling Data Says (Think Progress)
Why Clinton Isn't Sweating 'Deplorables' (Politico)
Why It’s Ridiculous to Call Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” Her “47 Percent” Moment (Slate)
Data Reveals Hillary Clinton Was Right About Donald Trump’s ‘Deplorable’ Supporters (Huffington Post)
Those are pretty good things for the media to be talking about.
Clinton was right: Trump HAS lifted up the deplorable (CNN)
Hillary Clinton Was Politically Incorrect, but She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters (the Atlantic)
Spare me the phony outrage over Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ remark (Washington Post)
Is Hillary Clinton Right About Trump Supporters? This Is What The Polling Data Says (Think Progress)
Why Clinton Isn't Sweating 'Deplorables' (Politico)
Why It’s Ridiculous to Call Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” Her “47 Percent” Moment (Slate)
Data Reveals Hillary Clinton Was Right About Donald Trump’s ‘Deplorable’ Supporters (Huffington Post)
Those are pretty good things for the media to be talking about.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
If you think so, then what did the pollsters mean by "unfavorable" views? What did the respondents think they meant? Does that just not matter to you?
Damnit, was going to post something like this.
A lot of the criticism stems from the OPTICS of her saying this, but very few people disagree.
At this point, I think it would be quite hard for any reporter charged with covering Trump to disagree with the substance of what Hillary said.
She needs to stand firm on this charge. It's one of the most provocative things she has said all election.
balladofwindfishes
Member
This whole thing also seems to have totally blown over, because most of the news websites now have a bunch of 9-11 stuff as their headlines. At least online.
...I kind of wonder if the timing of this was planned. They had an "out" for the media cycle with 9-11, so they could judge what direction to take it without much risk.
...I kind of wonder if the timing of this was planned. They had an "out" for the media cycle with 9-11, so they could judge what direction to take it without much risk.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked