Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/717575519592644608

more Weaver spin

Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 11m11 minutes ago
Sanders camp. mgr tells Clinton campaign: Don't destroy Dem. party to satisfy the Sec.'s ambitions to become POTUS

 

[Box of Kittens]

Trump did really well in western and northern Wisconsin... but he got blown out in the south and the east. I wonder if this is indicative at all of how Indiana will vote or if it'll be similar to its Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky neighbours (not counting Ohio because Kasich).

Well, Indiana has very little area that I would consider comparable to western Wisconsin (largely rural and left-leaning). The Indianapolis suburbs and the Milwaukee suburbs strike me as broadly similar, i.e, they're both heavily Republican and mostly similar kinds of Republicans.

 

[Macho Madness]

Which would probably work, as that's one of my biggest problems as a Bernie supporter (he couldn't have paid some ultra-leftist professor to come up with this shit yet?), but "disqualify" seems to indicate technicalities of some sort.

Disqualify means make him sound unfit for the office, not a technicality.

 

[jack_package_200]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/717575519592644608

more Weaver spin

I find it funny that he claims she will destroy the democratic party yet Bernie didn't give a fuck about the democratic party until he decided to run for president.

 

[T'Zariah]

She is going to hammer the fuck out of his lack of specifics. The quoting of that entire interview tells the upcoming tale.

Her knowledge of policy is one of her greatest assets, and one of his greatest weaknesses.

The advantage of going that route is it only alienates his delusional supporters. It's substantive, and not as much an attack on character either.

And since she was never going to convince his delusional supporters to vote for her anyhow, there's no downside, honestly, so long as what she says is, factual, concise, and most of all, savage.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, Indiana has very little area that I would consider comparable to western Wisconsin (largely rural and left-leaning). The Indianapolis suburbs and the Milwaukee suburbs strike me as broadly similar, i.e, they're both heavily Republican and mostly similar kinds of Republicans.

Exactly. The states differences are that Indianapolis is much more conservative than Milwaukee and rural Indiana is almost all conservative leaning versus western Wisconsin (though not not as conservative leaning as the direct suburbs of Indianapolis). And Gary does not have the political weight of Madison.

And that, kids, is why Wisconsin is D+2 and Indiana is R+5!

 

[watershed]

It will be interesting to see if she can hammer him for not having specifics or expertise when all indications are that voters, this primary season in particular, are not looking for specifics or expertise from candidates.

 

[Suite Pee]

Disqualify means make him sound unfit for the office, not a technicality.

Oh, duh. Maybe a bit too much gin for me. Well, like I said, shouldn't be too hard. I'll be looking forward to 2024 when the Kween abdicates and we see what the next generation of liberal leaders looks like.

 

[Holmes]

Disqualify means make him sound unfit for the office, not a technicality.

Yeah, they literally just copy and pasted most of the transcript of the NYDN interview in an email they sent today... just like "fuck it, this speaks for itself".

 

[Suikoguy]

It will be interesting to see if she can hammer him for not having specifics or expertise when all indications are that voters, this primary season in particular, are not looking for specifics or expertise from candidates.

Fair point, and a sad state of affairs. It's an early sign of a democracy heading towards collapse.

 

[Macho Madness]

Indiana is more like Ohio IMO

 

[T'Zariah]

Yeah, they literally just copy and pasted most of the transcript of the NYDN interview in an email they sent today... just like "fuck it, this speaks for itself".

It was the Clinton campaign literally saying "We don't even have to spin this or take anything out of context."

 

[jack_package_200]

Yeah, they literally just copy and pasted most of the transcript of the NYDN interview in an email they sent today... just like "fuck it, this speaks for itself".

To be fair it totally does. As someone who was a Bernie supporter it has been very disappointing to see Bernie does not have much beyond repeated rhetoric and dank memes and nothing on specifics.

 

[Cybit]

What does that even mean?

War Clinton, basically.

And since she was never going to convince his delusional supporters to vote for her anyhow, there's no downside, honestly, so long as what she says is, factual, concise, and most of all, savage.

....Are you fucking serious? 90+% percent of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton in a GE right now. Even his "delusional" supporters.

Welp, at least this confirms that much didn't change between '08 and '16.

 

[Suikoguy]

War Clinton, basically.



....Are you fucking serious? 90+% percent of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton in a GE right now. Even his "delusional" supporters.

Welp, at least this confirms that much didn't change between '08 and '16.

I hope nothing changed, but there are some particularities between that race and this one. It continues to nag me at the back of my mind, and I hope that feeling is wrong.

 

[BanGy.nz]

https://twitter.com/emmetoneal/status/717556131162263552

Queen going for blood.

Do we have a better source than that?

 

[Box of Kittens]

Exactly. The states differences are that Indianapolis is much more conservative than Milwaukee and rural Indiana is almost all conservative leaning versus western Wisconsin (though not not as conservative leaning as the direct suburbs of Indianapolis). And Gary does not have the political weight of Madison.

And that, kids, is why Wisconsin is D+2 and Indiana is R+5!

One weird thing about Indianapolis is, owing to the consolidated city-county government, there's significant parts of Indianapolis that are suburban or even rural in character. In fact, it's pretty much an open secret that a big motivation for consolidation was to add a bunch of Republican voters to the city. This succeeded in keeping the Republicans in power in Indianapolis for several more decades, but the city has slowly drifted leftward over time.

 

[Cybit]

I hope nothing changed, but there are some particularities between that race and this one. It continues to nag me at the back of my mind, and I hope that feeling is wrong.

The sore winners are surprising. Clinton has this in the bag for months and people are like "WRECK SANDERS AND MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT MYSELF!" "I DONT CARE IF WE DAMAGE OUR GE CHANCES."

Damn, the Dems need to lose a fucking election or two if that's the dumb bullshit they are peddling themselves. You do realize what's staring us on the other side?

 

[Paskil]

I saw some weird ballots today. Two Cruz, two Trump, and one Kasich voters that voted for Kloppenburg (out of the 106 absentee ballots I looked at). On regular ballots, Jeb Bush got zero votes and was a mess

Spoiler

airhorn

, but Rand and Santorum each got one, Carson got two, and Christie got zero. Rocky Roque got zero votes out of 1700 ballots cast (we had to manually look at every ballot for him and Victor Williams as write-ins).

 

[Y2Kev]

So he won by 13 or 15?

 

[Suikoguy]

The sore winners are surprising. Clinton has this in the bag for months and people are like "WRECK SANDERS AND MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT MYSELF!".

Damn, the Dems need to lose a fucking election or two if that's the dumb bullshit they are peddling themselves.

"Wreck Sanders"?

The only attacks i've seen on Sanders Character is his single-mindedness and somewhat egotistical bent. Nothing compared to the backhanded character attacks Sanders has made this election.

EVERYTHING else has been about his policies or lack thereof.

Edit: I want Hillary to go after his lack of specifics on policy and how he plans to get anything done that he is promising. I don't want her to stoop to the same level and attack Sanders as a person. The Reason for that? That's how politics work, and it's healthy to educate, at least some of his voters, how this process works.

 

[User 463088]

So he won by 13 or 15?

13.1%

 

[FlowersisBritish]

The sore winners are surprising. Clinton has this in the bag for months and people are like "WRECK SANDERS AND MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT MYSELF!" "I DONT CARE IF WE DAMAGE OUR GE CHANCES."

Damn, the Dems need to lose a fucking election or two if that's the dumb bullshit they are peddling themselves. You do realize what's staring us on the other side?

I'm sure a lot of Clinton supporters would understand the appeal of voting for the other candidate just to go "N'UH YOU DIDN'T WIN!" just out of a dislike of the other group.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Edit: I want Hillary to go after his lack of specifics on policy and how he plans to get anything done that he is promising. I don't want her to stoop to the same level and attack Sanders as a person. The Reason for that? That's how politics work, and it's healthy to educate, at least some of his voters, how this process works.

Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with attacking Sanders as long as the attacks are substantive and don't alienate potential general election supporters.

 

[Suikoguy]

13.1%

Did it really end up being 13.1%?

That increases his required targets moving forward, again.

Amusing how far off polling was, like Michigan.

It might be something in the water table, my brother is a Sanders supporter in WI, and has been ignoring my political talk about the Dem race for weeks now.

 

[Tranqueris]

"Shame on you, @BernieSanders try living one hour of our lives. Love, the #SandyHook Principal's Daughter," tweeted Erica Smegielski, whose mother, Dawn Hochsprung, was killed in the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, along with five other adults and 20 children.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...ims-daughter-criticizes-bernie-sanders-221611

 

[Cybit]

"Wreck Sanders"?

The only attacks i've seen on Sanders Character is his single-mindedness and somewhat egotistical bent. Nothing compared to the backhanded character attacks Sanders has made this election.

EVERYTHING else has been about his policies or lack thereof.

Pretty sure the "Most of all. savage" Sanders is close to "Wreck" him. That's the actual opposite of "attack him on single-mindness". I know this is bordering on Hillary-GAF; but I quoted the post where someone said the most important part was to "savage Sanders". That ain't about winning the GE. That's about making yourself feel better. We had a lot of that with PUMA. Lot of "winning by all means" in that camp; beneficial long-term or not, when it started.

EDIT: To the edit - absolutely. Sanders has shown nothing beyond having his pet causes integrated into the campaign which he has. At this point, the lack of detail and pragmatism in his campaign is appalling. That said, Clinton's worst "win at all costs" tendencies are supporting, and those tendencies lead to terrible electoral consequences when the data is looked at. His goal was to drag Clinton to the left when it came to Wall Street electorally, and he has at least in the primary. Sanders should be ecstatic about what he has accomplished, IMO.

 

[royalan]

If this were just a few weeks ago I would have hated the idea of Clinton going negative so early. I would have begged her to wait until closer to the NY primary, win that, THEN scalp him.

But in just the last week Bernie Sanders has slipped up so much that Hillary can now go nuclear on him over just the issues. She doesn't even have to go anywhere near a character attack, where she would face potential backlash. Force him into a conversation on specifics and then overwhelm the fuck out of him. As we've seen this week, he'll do most of the work making a fool out of himself.

Pretty sure the "Most of all. savage" Sanders is close to "Wreck" him. That's the actual opposite of "attack him on single-mindness". I know this is bordering on Hillary-GAF; but I quoted the post where someone said the most important part was to "savage Sanders". That ain't about winning the GE. That's about making yourself feel better. We had a lot of that with PUMA. Lot of "winning by all means" in that camp; beneficial long-term or not, when it started.

I don't know. Again, I would agree with this if this were a few weeks ago. You're right; seeing her win the nomination would be a lot more satisfying than any dig she could get on him on the campaign trail. But lately Sanders has gone SO negative on Hillary (to the point where he's now flat out lying), that I'm starting to feel that to not hit back would only make her look weak to the general electorate. She's going against Trump, a man who's built his brand around being a tough guy. She can't be seen as having soft hands.

An example must be made.

 

[Armaros]

Pretty sure the "Most of all. savage" Sanders is close to "Wreck" him. That's the actual opposite of "attack him on single-mindness". I know this is bordering on Hillary-GAF; but I quoted the post where someone said the most important part was to "savage Sanders". That ain't about winning the GE. That's about making yourself feel better. We had a lot of that with PUMA. Lot of "winning by all means" in that camp; beneficial long-term or not, when it started.

EDIT: To the edit - absolutely. Sanders has shown nothing beyond having his pet causes integrated into the campaign which he has. At this point, the lack of detail and pragmatism in his campaign is appalling. That said, Clinton's worst "win at all costs" tendencies are supporting, and those tendencies lead to terrible electoral consequences when the data is looked at. His goal was to drag Clinton to the left when it came to Wall Street electorally, and he has at least in the primary. Sanders should be ecstatic about what he has accomplished, IMO.

So what about the current Sanders Campaign that is running for office in past month?

The falsified oil money attacking, 'I can convince super delegates to switch even if I lose the Popular Vote', 'I didn't really try in the South' Sanders Campaign?

That's completely ignoring the surrogates and only talking directly about Sander himself and his top campaign staff.

 

[Suikoguy]

If this were just a few weeks ago I would have hated the idea of Clinton going negative so earlier. I would have begged her to wait until closer to the NY primary, win that, THEN scalp him.

But in just the last week Bernie Sanders has slipped up so much that Hillary can now go nuclear on him over just the issues. She doesn't even have to go anywhere near a character attack, where she would face potential backlash. Force him into a conversation on specifics and then overwhelm the fuck out of him. As we've seen this week, he'll do most of the work making a fool out of himself.

I kinda wish she pushed on specifics after the first couple of debates. This could have been over sooner, or forced Sanders to actually come up with some policy. Either of which would have been better outcomes.

Yes, Sanders does have some policy, the Tax Plan and behavior wallstreet tax come to mind. But so much of it is still vague, and the primary is over half over.

 

[Paskil]

4/14 debate is now must see TV.

 

[And_Gignac]

Did it really end up being 13.1%?

That increases his required targets moving forward, again.

Amusing how far off polling was, like Michigan.

It might be something in the water table, my brother is a Sanders supporter in WI, and has been ignoring my political talk about the Dem race for weeks now.

After rounding he will be at 57, which awards him 49 delegates (one off from his 538 target).

Probably the last time in a while where he actually reaches his delegates goal.

4/14 debate is now must see TV.

I know! I cant wait for the #panamapapers innuendos.

 

[Suikoguy]

After rounding he will be at 57, which awards him 49 delegates (one off from his 538 target).

Probably the last time in a while where he actually reaches his delegates goal.

Hey, your lack of delusion is showing. ;p

 

[pigeon]

If this were just a few weeks ago I would have hated the idea of Clinton going negative so earlier. I would have begged her to wait until closer to the NY primary, win that, THEN scalp him.

But in just the last week Bernie Sanders has slipped up so much that Hillary can now go nuclear on him over just the issues. She doesn't even have to go anywhere near a character attack, where she would face potential backlash. Force him into a conversation on specifics and then overwhelm the fuck out of him. As we've seen this week, he'll do most of the work making a fool out of himself.

I don't think this works. There's been multiple occasions in debates already where she's offered to debate Sanders on specifics -- specifics of fracking, specifics of finreg, etc., etc.

Sanders just avoids the specifics, repeats the general principle, and then his supporters praise him for his integrity. I had this exact argument about fracking and finreg on this board!

I don't know. Again, I would agree with this if this were a few weeks ago. You're right; seeing her win the nomination would be a lot more satisfying than any dig she could get on him on the campaign trail. But lately Sanders has gone SO negative on Hillary (to the point where he's now flat out lying), that I'm starting to feel that to not hit back would only make her look weak to the general electorate. She's going against Trump, a man who's built his brand around being a tough guy. She can't be seen as having soft hands.

An example must be made.

This post reads like you're kidding.

I hope you're kidding!

Nobody in November is going to say "well, we may as well let Trump win because Hillary didn't beat up on Bernie enough."

I generally agree with Cybit here, if this is Hillary's real plan it's pretty dumb. Just win the primary and go home, stop worrying about Bernie's flailing. He's been losing approval rating in the last couple of weeks as his campaign looks for a message to explain why they're still running, and that was before NYDN.

Why lower yourself to his level?

 

[User 463088]

She's not going to "go negative," except in the sense that to some Bernie supporters anything spoken against him is a negative attack. She's going to go after him on substantive issues, though.

She's going to hit him on guns coming into New York from Vermont. She's been hitting him hard on that on the stump in NY, and she'll do it at the debate too. She's going to hit him on his Sandy Hook comments which fits her position, and makes him look out of touch and like an ass.

She's going to hit him on specificity. Repeatedly. Any time he says he's going to do something, she's going to ask him how. The media has actually picked up on his shitty answers, and she's going to make sure everyone knows how shitty they were. Tying into that, she'll hit him on being a single issue candidate who can't even defend or explain his single issue.

She's not going to personally attack or smear him like he's been doing to her. She can't, not as the front runner.

 

[ivysaur12]

@benchmarkpol
Sneak peeks. Wyoming 68% S, 32% H. Maryland 73% H, 27% S. NY 54% H, 46% S. Pennsylvania 57% H, 43% S. http://benchmarkpolitics.com

They've been doing good work.

 

[eBay Huckster]

After rounding he will be at 57, which awards him 49 delegates (one off from his 538 target).

Probably the last time in a while where he actually reaches his delegates goal.

What's his goal in WY? I get the feeling he's gonna reach that easily.

After that, yeah, it looks like it's gonna be a mess for a while.

They've been doing good work.

Those margins get the lead back up to 297 before including the other 3 4/26 states. (And I get the feeling that's understating NY, if only slightly, and overstating MD by a few percent.)

 

[vicissitudes]

The political process is such a joke. Trump is clearly the best GOP candidate they could field. He's well-known, successful, and has broad appeal. He has the most support among moderate conservatives. He has the most support among (!) evangelicals. He has the most support in the northeast, AND he has the most support in the south, two regions which are basically polar opposites. He excites the base, he attracts new Republican voters, and he's the candidate who would be able to swing the most Democrats. He's well-connected with the rich and also a populist.

But he's likely to not get the nomination because the party bosses can't handle the idea of nominating someone who's not in their pocket. They are desperately clinging to Cruz, but don't kid yourself, it's not because anyone actually wants Cruz to win. It's all a ploy to stop Trump from getting to 1237. If the tables were turned and Cruz were ahead, they would rally behind Trump in the exact same way. Get a brokered convention so they can install their own puppet. It's disgusting.

Trump is basically the perfect GOP candidate to win in 2016 but the party is too busy throwing a temper tantrum. This is why I have no hope left for American Politics. No honest person can succeed as a politician in this country.

 

[Suikoguy]

The political process is such a joke. Trump is clearly the best GOP candidate they could field. He's well-known, successful, and has broad appeal. He has the most support among moderate conservatives. He has the most support among (!) evangelicals. He has the most support in the northeast, AND he has the most support in the south, two regions which are basically polar opposites. He excites the base, he attracts new Republican voters, and he's the candidate who would be able to swing the most Democrats. He's well-connected with the rich and also a populist.

But he's likely to not get the nomination because the party bosses can't handle the idea of nominating someone who's not in their pocket. They are desperately clinging to Cruz, but don't kid yourself, it's not because anyone actually wants Cruz to win. It's all a ploy to stop Trump from getting to 1237. If the tables were turned and Cruz were ahead, they would rally behind Trump in the exact same way. Get a brokered convention so they can install their own puppet. It's disgusting.

Trump is basically the perfect GOP candidate to win in 2016 but the party is too busy throwing a temper tantrum. This is why I have no hope left for American Politics. No honest person can succeed as a politician in this country.

Well, that's certainly a post on a message board.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The political process is such a joke. Trump is clearly the best GOP candidate they could field. He's well-known, successful, and has broad appeal. He has the most support among moderate conservatives. He has the most support among (!) evangelicals. He has the most support in the northeast, AND he has the most support in the south, two regions which are basically polar opposites. He excites the base, he attracts new Republican voters, and he's the candidate who would be able to swing the most Democrats. He's well-connected with the rich and also a populist.

But he's likely to not get the nomination because the party bosses can't handle the idea of nominating someone who's not in their pocket. They are desperately clinging to Cruz, but don't kid yourself, it's not because anyone actually wants Cruz to win. It's all a ploy to stop Trump from getting to 1237. If the tables were turned and Cruz were ahead, they would rally behind Trump in the exact same way. Get a brokered convention so they can install their own puppet. It's disgusting.

Trump is basically the perfect GOP candidate to win in 2016 but the party is too busy throwing a temper tantrum. This is why I have no hope left for American Politics. No honest person can succeed as a politician in this country.

Joke post?

 

[User 463088]

They've been doing good work.

If that was right, and she ties in Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut, she erases every single one of his wins except Utah.

 

[royalan]

This post reads like you're kidding.

I hope you're kidding!

Nobody in November is going to say "well, we may as well let Trump win because Hillary didn't beat up on Bernie enough."

I generally agree with Cybit here, if this is Hillary's real plan it's pretty dumb. Just win the primary and go home, stop worrying about Bernie's flailing. He's been losing approval rating in the last couple of weeks as his campaign looks for a message to explain why they're still running, and that was before NYDN.

Why lower yourself to his level?

Don't get me wrong, I would like to believe that this is true!!! I was right there in 2008, cringing every single time Hillary went negative only for it to backfire. Hillary has already demonstrated that she's not very good at going negative against someone she's supposed to be seen as playing nice with.

But this entire primary is covered in populist shit! Who knows what the rules are anymore? The only rule that seems to stick is Optics™ Matter.

We've seen 15 Republican candidates be wiped out and an entire party be thrown in shambles for not taking Trump seriously, ignoring him, and letting him play up his "Tough" brand.

 

[FlowersisBritish]

I hear a lot of talk about Bernie's smearing her name, but I really can't find anything outside of him bringing up the fact she receives very lofty fees for her speeches(of which she refuses to release transcripts for). I don't look at that so much as a smear, as much as a general realization of how uncomfortable the amount of money being thrown at her(and other politicians, and the political process in general) make me feel. Probably a similar discomfort people feel about Bernie's lack of specifics. If anyone has any other Bernie smear comments, feel free to point me in their direction.

 

[johnsmith]

This was pretty low.

 

[Suikoguy]

I hear a lot of talk about Bernie's smearing her name, but I really can't find anything outside of him bringing up the fact she receives very lofty fees for her speeches(of which she refuses to release transcripts for). I don't look at that so much as a smear, as much as a general realization of how uncomfortable the amount of money being thrown at her(and other politicians, and the political process in general) make me feel. Probably a similar discomfort people feel about Bernie's lack of specifics. If anyone has any other Bernie smear comments, feel free to point me in their direction.

He insinuates every bit of fundraising she gets is tainted, including pretending that donations from employees of a company are the same as the corporation donating. I'm sure others will add to this if they are so inclined.

 

[royalan]

I hear a lot of talk about Bernie's smearing her name, but I really can't find anything outside of him bringing up the fact she receives very lofty fees for her speeches(of which she refuses to release transcripts for). I don't look at that so much as a smear, as much as a general realization of how uncomfortable the amount of money being thrown at her(and other politicians, and the political process in general) make me feel. Probably a similar discomfort people feel about Bernie's lack of specifics. If anyone has any other Bernie smear comments, feel free to point me in their direction.

Bernie flat out saying that Hillary takes a "significant amount" of money from the oil and gas industry, and thus would be beholden to them as President, is not only a smear, it's a flat out lie, and several media outlets have actually hit Bernie on this.

And this is just in the last week.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Joke post?

Sadly no.

 

[XBP]

She's not going to "go negative," except in the sense that to some Bernie supporters anything spoken against him is a negative attack. She's going to go after him on substantive issues, though.

She's going to hit him on guns coming into New York from Vermont. She's been hitting him hard on that on the stump in NY, and she'll do it at the debate too. She's going to hit him on his Sandy Hook comments which fits her position, and makes him look out of touch and like an ass.

She's going to hit him on specificity. Repeatedly. Any time he says he's going to do something, she's going to ask him how. The media has actually picked up on his shitty answers, and she's going to make sure everyone knows how shitty they were. Tying into that, she'll hit him on being a single issue candidate who can't even defend or explain his single issue.

She's not going to personally attack or smear him like he's been doing to her. She can't, not as the front runner.

Which would be hitting him on something thats not true

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/05/h...k-on-bernie-is-not-backed-up-by-federal-data/

 

[mashoutposse]

The political process is such a joke. Trump is clearly the best GOP candidate they could field. He's well-known, successful, and has broad appeal. He has the most support among moderate conservatives. He has the most support among (!) evangelicals. He has the most support in the northeast, AND he has the most support in the south, two regions which are basically polar opposites. He excites the base, he attracts new Republican voters, and he's the candidate who would be able to swing the most Democrats. He's well-connected with the rich and also a populist.

But he's likely to not get the nomination because the party bosses can't handle the idea of nominating someone who's not in their pocket. They are desperately clinging to Cruz, but don't kid yourself, it's not because anyone actually wants Cruz to win. It's all a ploy to stop Trump from getting to 1237. If the tables were turned and Cruz were ahead, they would rally behind Trump in the exact same way. Get a brokered convention so they can install their own puppet. It's disgusting.

Trump is basically the perfect GOP candidate to win in 2016 but the party is too busy throwing a temper tantrum. This is why I have no hope left for American Politics. No honest person can succeed as a politician in this country.

That's all on paper. The reality is Trump's temperament is complete garbage. He's also thin-skinned, scatterbrained, and not sufficiently curious enough about several important issues to develop strong and consistent opinions.

Appearing 'presidential' means improving significantly in these areas. His 1980s self would have run away with this. 2016 Trump seems washed up.

 

[Bowdz]

I hear a lot of talk about Bernie's smearing her name, but I really can't find anything outside of him bringing up the fact she receives very lofty fees for her speeches(of which she refuses to release transcripts for). I don't look at that so much as a smear, as much as a general realization of how uncomfortable the amount of money being thrown at her(and other politicians, and the political process in general) make me feel. Probably a similar discomfort people feel about Bernie's lack of specifics. If anyone has any other Bernie smear comments, feel free to point me in their direction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

The recent spat over oil donations sums up the MO for Sanders' attacks. Heavily imply that she is bought and paid for by political contributions despite not having any evidence of quid pro quo relationships. Bernie has said she is bad for the environment irrespective of her green energy plans BECAUSE she has had people from the industry (just like Bernie) and lobbyists (who represent a multitude of clients including oil companies) contribute to her campaign (ignoring the massive support she gets from the solar industry).

Again, nothing as overt or offensive as what's going on on the GOP side, but the constant implication that Hillary is bought and paid for without any evidence to back it up.