Trump is largely outsourcing what's typically called a campaign's ground game, which includes the labor-intensive jobs of identifying and contacting potential supporters. Ed Brookover, recently tapped to serve as the Trump's liaison to the RNC, says the campaign is making progress on adding its own staff in key states.
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
"There are some holes," Brookover said. "There are fewer holes than there were.
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
I could believe its just me believing these articles, but its not ME making this up. Its what is being reported. Can I be at least forgiven for believing in media?There were only just two candidates (or maybe not, depending on the timing of the note), as that's the same day that Bernie launched his campaign.
That's pretty narrow evidence, if it is even evidence at all.
Political party aims to protect one of their candidates from Republican attacks. Shocking news. Were Sanders the only candidate in the race with a known name and reputation at that point I'm 100% confident there'd be warnings about his previous, "colorful" statements on economic issues such as Venezuela and bread lines. She's the only person at that point that would poll above an asterisks of a percent at time of writing. Sanders wasn't even in. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat at that point. One could argue that the author there might not have even known who Sanders was at the time, to say nothing of trying to work against him specifically.What does this mean?
That's not the message I think anyone wants you to take from here. Discussion on essentially any and everything is welcomed here as long as they're willing to make a sound argument for themselves. If you had actual, detailed and specific proof of some conspiracy against Sanders, people would gladly hear you out.I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
Thank you very much, and thank you for the decent analogy. That does make sense, putting it that way.So first off, like, I am not sure that the DNC is supposed to be impartial. The DNC's job is to try to win the presidency, protect downticket races, and support Democratic policy goals. If Donald Trump tried to run as a Democrat, would you want the DNC to be impartial, or would you want the DNC to work hard to block him on the grounds that he is an insane unqualified racist? (Note that I'm not suggesting anything particular about Sanders here, just questioning this assumption.)
But leave that aside for the moment. Even if the DNC is impartial it doesn't mean that they don't have OPINIONS. Whether or not the DNC ran fair contests, is it really surprising that people working for the DNC, pretty much the definition of establishment politicians, BELIEVED that Hillary would win and be the nominee they would have to support? Because (and again this assumes the email is from somebody in the DNC) that's all this phrasing suggests.
I don't think that believing the conventional wisdom that Hillary would win, which turned out to be clearly accurate, is really evidence of collusion against the other candidates.
If anything, my concern about this email is that the first paragraph just says "Ultimately, we need to" and then ends in mid-sentence. If this is a conspiracy it is a very poorly organized one.
Hope you get the job, btw!
You asked why we were not talking about the DNC colluding with the media to portray Sanders in a negative light.I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.
I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
Well, that certainly isn't helping. I read a few articles, watched a few news sites, posted my sources. Is that not due diligence?Political party aims to protect one of their candidates from Republican attacks. Shocking news. Were Sanders the only candidate in the race with a known name and reputation at that point I'm 100% confident there'd be warnings about his previous, "colorful" statements on economic issues such as Venezuela and bread lines. She's the only person at that point that would poll above an asterisks of a percent at time of writing. Sanders wasn't even in. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat at that point. One could argue that the author there might not have even known who Sanders was at the time, to say nothing of trying to work against him specifically.
That's not the message I think anyone wants you to take from here. Discussion on essentially any and everything is welcomed here as long as they're willing to make a sound argument for themselves. If you had actual, detailed and specific proof of some conspiracy against Sanders, people would gladly hear you out.
I respectfully disagree. Bernie Bros, Socialist/Communist, Sexist (For his 'bros' throwing money at Hillary motorcade). But I digress, I was wrong, and I accept that. I'll be on my way.[*]You came with the perception that Sanders has been portrayed negatively in the media; in May 2015 and for several months after, Sanders actually received very positive media attention, while Hillary was being dogged with Benghazi and emails until October. Hillary has received and still receives more negative media attention than Sanders.
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
Well, that certainly isn't helping. I read a few articles, watched a few news sites, posted my sources. Is that not due diligence?
You guys are tough. I think it is a believable idea, which I tried to back up, but it wasn't enough; I suppose this is not the place to speculate, to come to conclusions based on sound reasoning, and that was my mistake. So I will leave, tail tucked between my legs, never to return.
Take care, and my apologies.
I respectfully disagree. Bernie Bros, Socialist/Communist, Sexist (For his 'bros' throwing money at Hillary motorcade). But I digress, I was wrong, and I accept that. I'll be on my way.
So now Donald tweets polls where he's behind? LOL.
Does anyone here remember just how unrelatable the media was making Hillary Clinton seemed that summer? Like the time she was walking in a parade and her security had her corralled like royalty? The media was mocking her for at least a week.
- You came with the perception that Sanders has been portrayed negatively in the media; in May 2015 and for several months after, Sanders actually received very positive media attention, while Hillary was being dogged with Benghazi and emails until October. Hillary has received and still receives more negative media attention than Sanders.
Firstly, don't discredit how she feels. Even if you think she's completely, totally and insanely wrong? Don't lecture. It's hard to do, and so easy to want to, but lecturing people just makes them dig in.
Acknowledge how she feels, but then just ask her what she would tell the millions of us who would be harmed, daily, by Drumpf being in power. What are we supposed to do while America learns whatever lesson this is supposed to be. Am I supposed to go back in the closet or continue to get shot at so someone can learn how bad things can get? Are families supposed to be torn apart so that we can learn a lesson?
Let her know you respect how she feels, but this is about way more than getting exactly what she wants. It's about, literal, life and death for people.
The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?
Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.
The New York Post. How reliable are they?
http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/
How did a criminal get the nomination?
What I actually told her is that I didn't want my children to be forced to live with conservative SC judges. I don't think she would actually go through with Trump.
I only bring it up because although Bernie is supposed to be the young man's candidate, both of my parents (who are in their late 60s) are still enormously into Bernie. They're probably just outliers.
This is dated literally the day Bernie announced.
What does this mean?
I saw on one of the news channels that his explanation was that some people don't want to admit they'll be voting for him when they are surveyed, so he's actually ahead.So now Donald tweets polls where he's behind? LOL.
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
What does this mean?
This is dated literally the day Bernie announced.
I also find it suspicious the leak didn't include who sent it.
I've been thinking as a "gotcha" question, reporters should be asking GOPers this question point blank.
"Should Omar Mateen been allowed to purchase his AR-15."
There's no good answer on that one other than "no," which they won't say but if they did you follow up with "So what gun control measure do you support to have prevented that?"
The optics will be horrible for them when they probably ignore the question.
I've been thinking as a "gotcha" question, reporters should be asking GOPers this question point blank.
"Should Omar Mateen been allowed to purchase his AR-15."
There's no good answer on that one other than "no," which they won't say but if they did you follow up with "So what gun control measure do you support to have prevented that?"
The optics will be horrible for them when they probably ignore the question.
Understatement of the year.The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
"There are some holes," Brookover said. "There are fewer holes than there were.
Nothing exemplifies the blind religious fever some found in the Bernie campaign more than losing your shit over a bird landing near him. That's not politics. That's religion.
They are paid off to be pro-gun as possible. Anyone getting a gun means more money for the gun makers, which means more money for the NRA, which means more money for them. It's their own fault that he was able to purchase a gun in the first place, but they would never say that. So what do they do? Blame it on ISIS, which may have just been a ruse by the shooter, and no longer mentioning it was LGBT people who got killed.
<guy on twitter>It wasn't an AR-15</guy on twitter>
Whatever gun it was, doesn't matter.
I don't know what's happening anymore..
Give how bloody obvious it is that this isn't proof of anything and given that you linked to the freaking NY Post. Nah you can't be.I could believe its just me believing these articles, but its not ME making this up. Its what is being reported. Can I be at least forgiven for believing in media?
The aggression is real (not you), but thank you for breaking it down for me.
Nothing exemplifies the blind religious fever some found in the Bernie campaign more than losing your shit over a bird landing near him. That's not politics. That's religion.
I saw on one of the news channels that his explanation was that some people don't want to admit they'll be voting for him when they are surveyed, so he's actually ahead.
No, seriously.
As someone else posted, I'd say pictures of Obama having a speech in the pouring down rain is a lot more powerful than a bird that landed on a podium.
I'd also like to think that the birdie tweeted 'You'll never be president now" to him.
The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?
Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.
The New York Post. How reliable are they?
http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/
If that memo is driving you guys crazy, wait until you hear about the 'Stanford University study'. Which is probably just some guy's term paper, but whatever. IT PROVES THE FRAUD. So... you know.
FRAAUAUUUUUD.