• 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.

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I havent read the article, but I disagree somewhat if thats the conclusion. Clintons dont particularly care about optics, and that usually gets them in hot water. She technically didnt send or receive classified info at hrod17@clintonemail.com, and said everything truthful to FBI. But the optics dont care. Someone else forwarded an improperly marked chain to her and she gets punished for saying she didnt send or receive classified info. Same thing with Clinton foundation. Same thing with Bill meeting Lynch on the tarmac. She gave speech to goldman sachs because she's from NY and an influential international leader. Nothing illegal. The optics weren't kind. She's corrupt and sold out. Same shit with Whitewater! It never ends. Its crazy how they survived this long.

I think there's a lot to criticize the clintons for and not all of it is baseless.

A large part of the reason these things don't sink them is once they're in office the Clintons tend to do a pretty good job.

Also the fact that despite how the optics look, the fact they never get in any actual trouble says volumes to people about the attacks on them. The fact people keep trying to make these optical problems into actual ones goes a long way toward helping them fight off any actual attacks, because it's just seen as more of the same bullshit.
 
A large part of the reason these things don't sink them is once they're in office the Clintons tend to do a pretty good job.

Also the fact that despite how the optics look, the fact they never get in any actual trouble says volumes to people about the attacks on them. The fact people keep trying to make these optical problems into actual ones goes a long way toward helping them fight off any actual attacks, because it's just seen as more of the same bullshit.
In a perfect world though. Our world is shitty full of gossiping news media and republicans who turn into rabid zombies at the mere mention of clintons. If you're in politics, you should care about optics!
 

Iolo

Member
haha Trump supports amnesty now. Hoo boy

CqqGW7aVMAAJLp1.jpg
 
Ok even if Clinton had completely separated herself from the Clinton foundation, which is almost impossible because many of the donors to the foundation were friends of there's anyway so any meeting with them could be construed as meeting with a donor, there would still be calls for her to shut it down because she would have even more power as president.

This is one issue where I don't want her to cave in to any political pressure and keep it running. She needs to come out and give a speech on this. One of Clinton's biggest problems is how guarded she is from the press. The press is going to keep harping on her not shutting things down further when she was secretary of state and pointing to a perceived a double standard

If I had to guess, the Clinton Foundation will unfortunately be shut down though
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
In a perfect world though. Our world is shitty full of gossiping news media and republicans who turn into rabid zombies at the mere mention of clintons. If you're in politics, you should care about optics!

Which is why this shit keeps happening. But it also says volumes about the voters, who by and large don't seem to give a rat's ass about this shit.
 
I await the articles of huge collections of quotes from Trump saying the exact opposite of precisely that. He gives an oddly specific example of something Obama said he was trying to avoid, too.

"The bad ones?" Hah. Yes, would the mean ones please raise their hands so we know to deport them?
 
She doesn't have a good answer on emails or the Foundation or speeches because there is no good answer.

She did what past Sec States did out of convenience.

She cofounded a charity that takes money where it can. And meets with a lazy few dozen.

She traded on her celebrity and career to make bank on speaking.

Meh.

I mean I think the answer she wants to give is "seriously, who gives a fuck?"
 
She doesn't have a good answer on emails or the Foundation or speeches because there is no good answer.

She did what past Sec States did out of convenience.

She cofounded a charity that takes money where it can. And meets with a lazy few dozen.

She traded on her celebrity and career to make bank on speaking.

Meh.

I mean I think the answer she wants to give is "seriously, who gives a fuck?"
The answer is a big chunk of our dumb, uninformed electorate that cant name our sitting VP.
 

royalan

Member
The answer is a big chunk of our dumb, uninformed electorate that cant name our sitting VP.

Yep.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: assuming nobody cares and/or gives a fuck and that the facts will make themselves known is why Democrats lose up and down the ticket. Repeatedly.
 
Ok even if Clinton had completely separated herself from the Clinton foundation, which is almost impossible because many of the donors to the foundation were friends of there's anyway so any meeting with them could be construed as meeting with a donor, there would still be calls for her to shut it down because she would have even more power as president.

This is one issue where I don't want her to cave in to any political pressure and keep it running. She needs to come out and give a speech on this. One of Clinton's biggest problems is how guarded she is from the press. The press is going to keep harping on her not shutting things down further when she was secretary of state and pointing to a perceived a double standard

If I had to guess, the Clinton Foundation will unfortunately be shut down though
And what makes it particularly frustrating is that it's another instance where the Clinton's can't win no matter what they do. They keep it around, they'll keep getting attacked for it. If it's closed, they'll be attacked anyway because Republicans will take that as an admission of guilt and proof of how corrupt they are and attacking any continued claims of innocence with putting politics and their political futures over the charity. So stupid. =/
 

Iolo

Member
Come on, if someone can't name the sitting VP they are probably not reachable via a good answer at a debate, or even an ad. If they even vote.

And targeted individual outreach you don't see is a better method anyway
 
The only thing this is going to hurt is honesty and trustworthy numbers. Those aren't getting appreciably worse because of this, and she's running way ahead of those numbers anyway. Like, it's so stupid. When Andrea Mitchell is like "You know, this is a normal thing that everyone has always done" you know you're beating a dead horse.
 
It's funny seeing the situation Roger Ailes is in in comparison to Mad Men. I just started Season 1 and he seems like he would fit right into the cast. He just never changed with the times and brought that same culture to a modern news establishment and expected to not get burnt by it.
 
Yeah this is a pretty horrible strategy and I hope that they are only saying this to catch orange turd off guard. Orange turd is presenting the Clinton campaign with countless opportunities to redirect the attention towards him with these conspiracies and accusations of corruption but they are doing absolutely nothing about it. The problem with this strategy of doing nothing is that in the eyes of many people it legitimizes accusations because Clinton is not defending herself efficiently.

You're gunning for that Diablos spot, eh? Cartoon soldier pulled a Carson awhile back and almost took the crown, but maybe you can win it all.

There was a Vox article a while back about how, whatever Clinton's team does, people will complain that she's doing the wrong thing.

Just to add to the growing mountain of evidence that our nation is sexist, no white guy would ever see these headlines if polling had him up on his opponent by this much. Somehow Clinton pulling a landslide out isn't good enough; she's got to do a 538-0 shutout before people admit that she's actually always been pretty good at her job, and that includes campaigning (since she's holding down 2nd and 3rd right now for most votes gotten in a primary of either party).

I havent read the article, but I disagree somewhat if thats the conclusion. Clintons dont particularly care about optics, and that usually gets them in hot water. She technically didnt send or receive classified info at hrod17@clintonemail.com, and said everything truthful to FBI. But the optics dont care. Someone else forwarded an improperly marked chain to her and she gets punished for saying she didnt send or receive classified info. Same thing with Clinton foundation. Same thing with Bill meeting Lynch on the tarmac. She gave speech to goldman sachs because she's from NY and an influential international leader. Nothing illegal. The optics weren't kind. She's corrupt and sold out. Same shit with Whitewater! It never ends. Its crazy how they survived this long.

I think there's a lot to criticize the clintons for and not all of it is baseless.

Your last sentence is completely disputed by the first paragraph here. Optics is going down in my book as the most annoying word of 2016, since it's pointless and means nothing and should actively be ignored.
 

Kid Heart

Member
She doesn't have a good answer on emails or the Foundation or speeches because there is no good answer.

She did what past Sec States did out of convenience.

She cofounded a charity that takes money where it can. And meets with a lazy few dozen.

She traded on her celebrity and career to make bank on speaking.

Meh.

I mean I think the answer she wants to give is "seriously, who gives a fuck?"

People who don't want to look in a mirror and admit their own faults?

I dunno, sometimes I think people set the bar too high for sitting politicians and try to put them to standards no one except Jesus would be able to maintain.

I feel not enough people seriously ask themselves, "okay, so if I were a public figure and people where gnawing at the chance dig up any dirt on me, how would I look to the public at large?" I think a lot of people would realize they're not the saints they think they are internally.

Anyway, even though you're probably right that there is no good answer to these problems, I think she at least needs something ready for the debate as I doubt Donald will let them go. He really doesn't have much else to hit her on. Hopefully her answers by then just don't suck.
 
I wish Trump reversing all his policies would lead to some poetic conclusion where all his supporters turn on him, and his outreach to AAs (by being racist against Mexicans and Muslims) flops harder than
Kubo ;_;

But it won't. I heard some calls from Trump supporters today. They just think he's playing smart, being "realistic" and doing the general election strategy. Ah well, still can just hope that Nov. 8 is a good day, and the 9th is even better.
 

Teggy

Member
If you listen closely you can hear the sound of his core supporters abandoning him.

Hardly. His supporters don't care. This is dangerous. Hillary has to have a very good response to this to prevent him from picking up voters who haven't been paying attention and think he's had a change of heart.
 
Hardly. His supporters don't care. This is dangerous. Hillary has to have a very good response to this to prevent him from picking up voters who haven't been paying attention and think he's had a change of heart.

Trump is a fascist who is having to abandon his genuine racial hatred in a desperate comeback attempt because he's losing so badly.

This guy still wants to execute the Central Park Five. Liberals worried about this are weird.
 

pigeon

Banned
Hardly. His supporters don't care. This is dangerous. Hillary has to have a very good response to this to prevent him from picking up voters who haven't been paying attention and think he's had a change of heart.

If Trump supporters don't care why would other voters care?
 

Joeytj

Banned
What the hell just happened at FiveThirtyEight.com?

An insane amount of polls from Ipsos/Reuters just came in. They show Hillary losing Arizona by about 7 points, just like the CNN poll, but also her winning Missouri by 7!

These are...weird numbers. Hillary is underperforming in some blue states, but over performing in other red states (Arkansas?!). Maybe Trump stopped the bleeding of suburban Republicans? That would explain his good number in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, but his bad numbers in Florida and Ohio.

Hillary ;

Missouri +7
New Hampshire +1
Wisconsin +1
North Carolina +2
Oregon +4
Penn +1
Virginia +6
Ohio + 7
Florida +7
Minnesota (?) +9
New Mexico +3
Nevada +2

Iowa ± 0

Trump:

Arizona +7
Georgia +4
Arkansas +5
Montana +7
Texas +13 (...)
Utah +10

Surveys were taking a long time ago, half from August 12-19 and the others from jul 29-19, so some still include pre-DNC bounce and Trump meltdown numbers.
 

itschris

Member
Politico: Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy

She is not planning on sitting for another televised armchair confessional to rehash regrets about a private email server. Nor is the campaign setting up the kind of war room employed last year to discredit a book that aimed to expose a quid-pro-quo relationship between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department officials.

With 75 days until Election Day and new emails once again casting a pall over her campaign, Hillary Clinton aims to “run out the clock,” confidants say, on the latest chapters of the overlapping controversies that have dogged her campaign since the start.

According to allies and operatives close to the campaign, Clinton’s team thinks “they can ride out” any negative reaction to a set of new emails that show Clinton Foundation officials trying to set up State Department meetings for donors during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat.

“That doesn’t mean no response,” one Clinton team insider said, “but a muted one rather than a five-alarm fire.”

It's a strategy borne, in part, of a belief held deeply by Clinton herself that the email controversy is a fake scandal and that voters are as sick of it as the candidate herself — and by the profound weaknesses of Clinton's opponent.

...

Clinton remains, as one ally described, as decidedly and defiantly “puritan” as she was 17 months ago that the email investigation is nothing more than a partisan attack. Close allies characterize her as frustrated by the ongoing focus on the issue of her email server because she still fundamentally believes she did nothing to bend the rules. She is also resentful that Trump is only trailing by single digits in national polls when she thinks there is no comparison between her baggage and his and that a Clintonian double standard is at play.

...

Indeed, without new information and barring a dramatic improvement in Trump’s numbers, the Clinton team thinks it would be a mistake for the candidate or her surrogates to respond.

One source close to the campaign said Clinton officials want to see if the Republicans overplay their hand while hammering Clinton on an issue that close to two-thirds of voters, according to a Monmouth University poll, said they were sick of hearing about — last year.
 

Iolo

Member
Hardly. His supporters don't care. This is dangerous. Hillary has to have a very good response to this to prevent him from picking up voters who haven't been paying attention and think he's had a change of heart.

1. She's giving a speech tomorrow on the alt right
2. Wait a few days and he'll have a new position
3. In fact just wait for the rally tonight with Farage

^ ah someone else found the article
 

Brinbe

Member
I think they're wrong on this because running out the clock is always counter-productive, and it's stubborn thinking. The fact that they still haven't crafted a decent response to the email question is completely pitiful. They've had all year.

But unless things start to backslide in places like NH/PA/VA, they still have an insurmountable EV lead right now. But calling as it is, they're disappointing. Trump's making the right moves right now. It may be too late, but everything he's done for the past two weeks is exactly what he should have been doing from the onset of the general. He'd be in a much better place if he pivoted earlier, and lucky for us, he didn't.
 

Bowdz

Member
Priorities for the election:
1. Elect Clinton
2. Retake the Senate
3. Make Marco Rubio a loser twice in the same election cycle
4. Rub it in Rubio's face for a year after he loses.
5. Call Rubio a loser when he runs for gov in 2018 and make him lose again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom