• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be real-Trump's endgame here is to run his own PAC build on his brand, siphon off cash from his biggest fans to administrative expenses (read:patronage), and then use the leftovers to torpedo anyone who didn't kiss the ring during his failed run.
 
Remember how Bob Dole fell of the stage and Bill Clinton made a big deal out of it?
No?
Me either...because he's not a piece of trash like everyone associated with the Trump campaign.
 
Yup. It's what they wanted him to go for originally and it's not like the NY GOP is in a good place.
Hahahahaha, well, good luck with that....

Can he take money from his campaign, transition it to a PAC or whatever to fund a future run? I feel like that's probably technically legal, but maybe not.
 
Clinton foundation just said that if Hillary is POTUS they will not accept foreign and corporate donations

dont know if thats new, just heard it on local news
 

Retro

Member
So, it's August and everybody is already talking about Trump losing, but the race will narrow more, I don't doubt it, and get even uglier.

Having said that, I'm not that worried, mostly because we still have the debates, the ground game looks superb, Tim Kaine is hitting it out of the park wherever he campaigns, and the major surrogates (Warren, Obama, Bill, others) haven't even been let out.

Yes, a strong enough Clinton scandal, terrorist attack or other outside event might help Trump, but there's little anybody can do about that, outside of maybe downplaying any future event by saying that it's inevitable but not important (like already tying Wikileaks tu Russia).

The Clinton health thing bugs me, because it's difficult to prove those things wrong outside of a livestreaming of a Hillary physical or something.

I'm not so sure it will narrow, certainly not to the point that I'd be worried. We're well beyond the possibility that this is still the "convention bounce," this is just the new normal for this election. There will be some shifting along the way, of course, but Trump can't keep his feet out of his mouth long enough to stop offending literally everyone except white working class voters.

Your second paragraph is dead on; putting Hillary and Trump on the same stage, without teleprompters, softball questions from Hannity and under strict time / topic obligations that discourage Trump's fugue state-style speaking manner? If he even shows up (and I really don't think he will), he's going to look like an absolute clown, so it's a complete lose / lose situation for Trump. He just has to decide whether he wants to lose by looking like a coward or looking like a buffoon. You're also right that Hillary's surrogates will make a lot of impact once they get going; Hillary has just been kicking back letting Trump wreck himself and it's working, but I think once you have the news covering Obama and Bill's remarks especially you'll see any potential dip in the polls recovered and then some.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the Orlando shooting actually hurt Trump's numbers. Likely because he was on twitter before the bodies were cold saying "Appreciate the congrats on being right on radical Islamic terrorism!" He's too much of an opportunist to really benefit from a terrorist attack.

Finally, Clinton's health = Obama's Birth Certificate. Relax. It won't gain traction outside of the bubble and it won't get reported as more than a curious conspiracy.

Considering how hard trump is pushing this, is he dying in 6th months?

81 days.
 
Obama why did you mess up that Iran cash answer. Should have talked to state dept dammit

That or be a little more honest..looks bad and people won't know the nuance. Also getting that money involved...I actually don't like that
 
One thing to keep in mind:

Of all the attacks we've used against Trump, how many of them came from shit he said since the convention? Almost of all of them, right? We haven't even dusted off any of the oppo-research we've been sitting on for quite a long time. We'll ramp up those attacks as the air goes out of the previous fuck ups....assuming Trump doesn't give us any more gems.
 

Bowdz

Member
Remember how Bob Dole fell of the stage and Bill Clinton made a big deal out of it?
No?
Me either...because he's not a piece of trash like everyone associated with the Trump campaign.

It really is embarrassing that we can use this line of reasoning to contrast Dems and Reps on a shittiness spectrum:

- Remember how there were 13 embassy attacks including 60 deaths during the Bush administration and how the Dems made a big deal out of it?
No?
Me either...because the Dems are not a party of garbage.

- Remember how the Bush administration lost some 22 million emails that were hosted on an RNC server that should have been covered by FOIA requests and how the Dems made a big deal out of it?
No?
Me either...because the Dems are not a party of garbage.

- Remember how the Bush administration let Russia invade Georgia and didn't do anything to stop them and how the Dems made a big deal out of it?
No?
Me either...because the Dems are not a party of garbage.

etc, etc, etc...
 

Retro

Member
It really is embarrassing that we can use this line of reasoning to contrast Dems and Reps on a shittiness spectrum:

Considering you have an official spokesman out there saying Obama invaded Afghanistan and a surrogate pretending 9/11 didn't happen because Islamic Terrorism only started after 2008? It's the fuckin' fact-free zone.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
CqK33XrW8AA1DNa.jpg


why?
 

Their strategy is find a huge venue they can fill, and run off the narrative that all the polling is wrong, look how many people turned up! If I'm doing that, I'm going to Mississippi because I can fill a venue with a fuckton of angry white people. This is the very definition of optics. It's their talking point if the polls continue to show a Hillary lead.

I get coming to MS for these reasons, but I don't know why you'd pick one of the places with a shit ton of minorities here. Should've gone with somewhere that wouldn't be guaranteed to get protest coverage. Jackson actually has D-words working there (democrats!).
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon

We looked back at media coverage at the time, and Williams has a point that it didn’t cause the same level of hubbub as the Clinton email scandal. Though to say there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole.

The mostly false was about Juan Williams saying there was zero press coverage.

Bowdz comment is exactly right.

Your very link says this:

Saying there was "zero press coverage" is an exaggeration -- even allowing for a bit of hyperbole. We found hundreds of articles and television transcripts referencing the issue. Still, Williams has something of a point that compared to the extensive recent coverage of Clinton’s use of private email, media coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy was thin.

Bowdz also mentioned the Dems response, not the medias response, which is what your link references.
 
I can get behind going to Jackson,MS for a fundraiser and then hold a rally afterwards so they don't waste an entire day, but I'm surprised they couldn't find a venue in the suburbs.
I know Mississippi. The urban area in Jackson is not GOP ground like the places he's held his other rallies.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
The race will tighten up during the debates because no matter how bad Trump comes off the narrative will be that he did better than expected/Hillary is an out of touch bully.

This happened every race since 2000 like clockwork. Usually the Republican "wins" the first debate, they tie the second one, and the Democrat "wins" the third one.
 
Trump could "do well" in the first debate because his expectations will be slightly above "he didn't light a bag of poop on fire!". What'll actually happen is that he'll be a giant bully and idiot and further alienate women and college educated voters who were already leaning Hillary.
 
I know Mississippi. The urban area in Jackson is not GOP ground like the places he's held his other rallies.
This is a campaign that held a rally for "Milwaukee" focused specifically around issues specific to Milwaukee in a town 30 miles away. They seriously don't care about the specifics of where they hold events or put any effort into it. There's absolutely no way they're considerate enough to think "that might be risky with a higher minority population." Someone thought "oh, a red state, that's safe, so let's find the biggest venue possible."
And Trump has chosen the worst of both worlds by technically keeping him on the campaign while letting a couple of enablers take over for him.
I was thinking that the "shake-up" new personnel were a setup for Manafort resigning immediately in the face of this awful stuff, but yeah apparently not. The Trump campaign can even handle getting rid of people properly.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Trump could "do well" in the first debate because his expectations will be slightly above "he didn't light a bag of poop on fire!". What'll actually happen is that he'll be a giant bully and idiot and further alienate women and college educated voters who were already leaning Hillary.

The media is too predictable on debates this century. No matter what happens Trump will win the first debate. If the popular opinion is that he didn't then he is truly and totally fucked.
 
The race will tighten up during the debates because no matter how bad Trump comes off the narrative will be that he did better than expected/Hillary is an out of touch bully.

This happened every race since 2000 like clockwork. Usually the Republican "wins" the first debate, they tie the second one, and the Democrat "wins" the third one.

2000 of course the press was all over Al Gore for those sighs.

As I recall the consensus in 2004 was actually that Kerry won the first debate. Bush was criticized for coming across as whiny.

I honestly remember relatively little of the 2008 debates other than Palin winking and sounding incomprehensible.

2012, on the other hand, was a treasure trove. After the disappointment of the first debate you had Biden eviscerating Ryan, "binders full of women," "please proceed, governor," etc.
 

Joeytj

Banned
Trump could "do well" in the first debate because his expectations will be slightly above "he didn't light a bag of poop on fire!". What'll actually happen is that he'll be a giant bully and idiot and further alienate women and college educated voters who were already leaning Hillary.

I'm guessing Hillary and her campaign are preparing for several possible scenarios in the debates, among them (but not limited to): Crazy Trump that can't stick to the allotted time and tries to basically do repeat a rally on stage; Calm but dumb Trump that will lose to Hillary when it comes to policy questions; Attacking Trump, who will go after Hillary with every single controversy they've got and interrupt her constantly; Presidential (pivot) Trump that will stick to broad specifics and a populist tone.

Hillary should be more worried about the last one, because Trump might avoid even being confrontational with Hillary and simply appear not as crazy as he really, forcing Hillary to simply repeat policy answers. She shouldn't attack Trump directly in this case, simply contrasting their policies, which should be enough, hoping Trump just says something stupid.

The worse thing she can do is a repeat of Obama in the first 2012 debate, appearing unprepared and flustered at Romney's attempts of reinventing himself.
 

Iolo

Member
2000 of course the press was all over Al Gore for those sighs.

As I recall the consensus in 2004 was actually that Kerry won the first debate. Bush was criticized for coming across as whiny.

I honestly remember relatively little of the 2008 debates other than Palin winking and sounding incomprehensible.

2012, on the other hand, was a treasure trove. After the disappointment of the first debate you had Biden eviscerating Ryan, "binders full of women," "please proceed, governor," etc.

I remember off the top of my head:
"That one"
And something along the lines of
McCain: gotcha zinger
Obama: I agree!
McCain: ... ok ._.
 
President Obama really does need to go to Louisiana. It's crazy how little media coverage the disaster has gotten compared to the severity. People have spent an equal amount of time covering this stupid Lochte story this week
 

Iolo

Member
I can get behind going to Jackson,MS for a fundraiser and then hold a rally afterwards so they don't waste an entire day, but I'm surprised they couldn't find a venue in the suburbs.
I know Mississippi. The urban area in Jackson is not GOP ground like the places he's held his other rallies.

They have got a private plane owned by the candidate which literally makes him money to use. He could do a fundraiser and then jet to a swing state (Georgia!) But he is lazy. Remember, every Trump accusation against Hillary (lazy, sleepy) is always a reflection on himself.
 

Bowdz

Member
President Obama really does need to go to Louisiana. It's crazy how little media coverage the disaster has gotten compared to the severity. People have spent an equal amount of time covering this stupid Lochte story this week

I agree wholeheartedly. It is not only a terrible disaster that needs more coverage, but it is a TERRIBLE look politically for the president to be on vacation in Martha's Vineyard while thousands of people are displaced due to record floods.
 

Iolo

Member
I agree wholeheartedly. It is not only a terrible disaster that needs more coverage, but it is a TERRIBLE look politically for the president to be on vacation in Martha's Vineyard while thousands of people are displaced due to record floods.

Let the man have a goddamn vacation! Especially when at least half of it is probably dealing with world shit including the Louisiana floods.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Colorado first in the nation in election participation and voter registration.

Largely attributed to our ease of registration and mail in ballots.
 
The race will tighten up during the debates because no matter how bad Trump comes off the narrative will be that he did better than expected/Hillary is an out of touch bully.

This happened every race since 2000 like clockwork. Usually the Republican "wins" the first debate, they tie the second one, and the Democrat "wins" the third one.

This is not true at all!

In 2000, 48% said Gore and 41% said Bush won the first debate. In the 2nd debate, 49% of debate watchers said Bush won the debate, compared with only 36% picking Gore.The third debate, it was 46% for Gore and 44% for Bush.

In 2004, Kerry was seen to have won the first debate 53% to 37%. Bush did better in subsequent debates, through a few unforced errors on behalf of Kerry.

In 2008, Obama was seen to have won the first debate 51–38. Obama won the second 54% to 30%. And the third 58% thought Obama won and 31% thought McCain won.

If you want to argue that when expectations are low, people grade on the curve, we can look at the Vice Presidential debate between Biden and Palin. 51% thought Biden won and 36% thought Palin won. Uncommitted votes broke 46/21 to Biden, with 33% saying it was a tie.

In 2012, Obama bombed the first debate because Obama is often a terrible debater. Obama clearly won the 2nd and 3rd.

So, your take applies only to one election out of the last four.
 

Iolo

Member
Also the debates seem to have a similar effect to the conventions, where a bounce is produced which usually reverts back to the general state of the race. A lot of zingers and debate lines that are celebrated now ("no Jack Kennedy", "youth and inexperience") hardly changed their respective races. Romney's bump wore off too as did Obama's.
 
The race will tighten up during the debates because no matter how bad Trump comes off the narrative will be that he did better than expected/Hillary is an out of touch bully.

This happened every race since 2000 like clockwork. Usually the Republican "wins" the first debate, they tie the second one, and the Democrat "wins" the third one.

I'd disagree. This is going to be a debate between two people who aren't president: there is no "usually" to make note of in these case. Whereas there are many examples of incumbent presidents struggling in at least one debate, usually the first one. The problem being that a president isn't used to being told "no" or "you're fucking this up" because...well, he's the president. Bush looked terrible in the first debate with Kerry not because he didn't prepare, but because he couldn't hide his disdain for someone challenging him. Most presidents are like that to some extent.

Kerry out preformed Obama during most of their 2012 mock debates. Obama was "prepared" but he simply did not take the mock debates as seriously as he should have, nor was he concerned about Romney. And it bit him in the ass. After that first debate he preformed better in mock debates and ultimately bested Romney in the next two debates.

If I was advising Trump I'd tell him to basically knock Hillary out. His only chance of "winning" is to dominate and intimidate her to the point she loses composure or falls flat. I'm guessing this will be the strategy since "let Trump be Trump" is back on the menu. It's not going to work, obviously, but it's the only hail mary he has. Such a performance could embolden his base and impression some regular voters. Like I said it's not going to work but still.
 

shem935

Banned
Politics conversations with family are always stressful. Seems like my mom hates trump and Clinton equally, doesn't plan on voting. Speaks to how much she hates trump, she despises all clintons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom