|
Epic High Five posted:Interesting for Fox to say, considering they ran a Benghazi ad over his speech Both Pat Smith and Khizar Khan were in the non-Primetime hours that usually don't have a big impact. In terms of why Khan got more press than Smith, part of it is that "Hillary murdered people at Benghazi" is already fairly played out as a story, and maybe part of it was Khan being more compelling than Smith (I didn't watch the RNC, so IDK). But the biggest reason Khan's in the news and Smith isn't is because Donald Trump is a moron. The correct thing to do when you get hit by something like Khizar Khan's speech is to take the hit and go talk about something else. Maybe there's an edge case where you can try to deflect the attack ("I'm sorry your son died and I honor your sacrifice, but Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote was what put him in harm's way"), but most of the time you just accept that you've lost the news cycles of the DNC and focus on making a splash over the weekend or on Monday to re-take the momentum or news cycle. Stuff outside of primetime isn't really seen by most voters, since it's only on the cable news networks and CSPAN, instead of on the broadcast networks. Instead, Trump launched a head-on attack against a Gold Star family and the religion of Islam. Then the Khans smacked him down. So the whole thing stays in the news for another couple days, and EVERYONE hears about it. Not only does Trump look like a monster attacking a Gold Star family, he's giving folks a reason to go watch the original video.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
TyrantWD posted:None of this means anything unless you are willing to withdraw your endorsement of the candidate. I'm not sure that means anything either. If you're still doing a coordinated campaign with the Republican Party, you're sending out canvassers saying "vote Trump/McCain", and you're going to have sample ballots which have both of them on it. Plus it's not like your opponent is going to let it go. Samurai Sanders posted:Great...Trump will interpret that as him winning since that's what children do. Hopefully he tries to gloat somehow and gets punched.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:Can someone explain to me why Russia is the new boogeyman now? I know that they have some political clout with veto power on the security council and there are concerns about hacking but it seems like it's going to be Red Dawn to these people any second now. In the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine Invasion/Crimean Annexation, they rattled their sabres at the Baltic states pretty hard. The worry is that they'll do the same play of agitating Russian minorities in like Latvia or Estonia and try to do there what they did in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and then one of those states would invoke Article 5, putting Russia at war with NATO. FlamingLiberal posted:Now Corey Lewandowski is on CNN claiming that 'the Khans' son wouldn't have died had Trump been president at that time'. That's sort of the only play though. Like the easiest response at the beginning would've been "Trump opposed the Iraq War where Cpt. Khan died and Hillary voted for it" plus some Gold Star families fluffing and some veteran fluffing. Mel Mudkiper posted:I find it interesting the Trump campaign is trying to act like the Khans are upset their son died in Iraq and not because the sacrifices their son made are being ignored and his religion denigrated. Yeah, but had they opened with that, it's plausible that the Khans would've just let it go. Instead they doubled-down on the religion attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
greatn posted:That only works if Trump isn't on video supporting the war(he is) LOL you think that matters. #NothingMatters UV_Catastrophe posted:Is there any actual data on whether Gary Johnson pulls more support away from Trump or more from Clinton? Most polls which include Johnson seem to include Stein as well, so it's tough. Hillary seems more impacted by a four-way race than Trump does, but a lot of it comes from the "not sure" folks picking a side.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Isn't there a 15% rule? Yes, but it was set by the totally shameful and rigged bipartisan Commission on Presidential debates, so it's totally negotiable. a shameful boehner posted:Very, very briefly. I think a Democrat supermajority only existed for something like 9 months given vacancies that had to be filled in the Senate and prior to next elections in 2010. Also, Joe Lieberman is a human shitstain, never forget. It's important to recognize, however, that getting to 60 votes in the Senate is going to require Blue Dogs - not every state is winnable for a Liz Warren or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
uPen posted:How do you convince someone to show up to vote, not vote for Trump and then vote for the Senator that endorsed him 6 months ago. FuzzySlippers posted:If Republicans are feeling a huge loss on the horizon will they turn it into a rout by abandoning Trump to save themselves? Focusing on local races doesn't mean saying "don't vote Trump" it means pouring money into mailers that feature the local candidate and don't say a word about the Donald. sarmhan posted:Same. Now-cast is still a bizarre thing to have so visible though. No, it's smart. The Poll-ercoaster is what brings clicks. Hillary moving 5 points on the NowCast drives clicks, while Hillary moving 0.5% on the future forecasts is boring as poo poo. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I won't believe it's over until Hillary swears in. I won't believe it's over until the Pretender Rebels are crushed, but I might be playing too much CK2. FuzzySlippers posted:It’s Official: There Is No Trap Donald Trump Won’t Fall For I've never heard of redstate.com before but the despair here is pretty funny. They try to be the DailyKos of the right but they're not as big. potato of destiny posted:Well, it's the first day of a brand new month, and that means it's time for Trump to burn down his entire campaign again. Let's be realistic here - the folks who organized that convention didn't do the world's greatest job. Like maybe it wasn't really their fault (I completely buy the idea that Trump was micromanaging or something) but it's not shocking that after a disastrous convention the guys who put it on got canned. SweetAsselin posted:All this talk about the system being rigged is cause for concern. With Trump whiping up his base into a frenzy and convincing them that they've been cheated and their freedom is at stake.... how does this not result in post election violence? And if there IS mass disobedience and violence... will Trump be held accountable? What happens if he's arrested? Does he become a martyr? Trump would only be liable if his speech encourages imminent lawless action. So it's quite easy for him to whip folks into a frenzy without getting into legal trouble (but then again if this election has taught us anything it's that his totally capable of going too far). speng31b posted:Yes, and his own party condemning him, even couched in softened terms or aside equal condemnations of Hillary, damages him. It is damaging him even now. Polls are showing it. Anecdote is showing it. I'm not sure what else you want. You can't say this isn't damaging him. Even beyond how much it's actually hurting him, it's hurting him because he has like 14 weeks until the election and he's the one losing. Every day that Trump isn't gaining ground with American voters he's making his job that much harder. sarmhan posted:I'm not sure we watched the same speeches. Allen's was weird but Hillary's actual speech was very left. It also had Khan's amazing denunciation. I feel like most of Allen's speech was about us sticking with our allies. It's not like he was advocating going on random offensive wars or anything. But I agree that the USA USA USA chants (to block out the Bernie chants) made it seem extra jingoistic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Why would you give a poo poo about how the DNC whored themselves out. It has no bearing on how Hillary governs once she's elected. She's not all of a sudden beholden to Republicans now that one spoke at the convention. Yeah, "Token Republican" is pretty normal at Dem Conventions (and I remember a few "Token Democrat" speeches at GOP Conventions). After all, like 5% of each party votes for the other party's Presidential candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:So what's the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency? The thing to realize here is that Trump gets to pick most of the folks who run the government (subject to the approval of the Senate, which would be run by guys who back Trump). And if they don't do what he says, he can fire them and replace them with their deputies, who he also picked. waitwhatno posted:US ICBM launch orders have to be verified by someone else before they go through, right? Not really. In theory the guys at the silo or whatever could refuse (along with everyone brought in to replace them), but at that point you've technically started an insurrection. waitwhatno posted:But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something. I mean, sure. But the craziest, right-wingiest guy who would get 50 Republican votes would be pretty out there as it is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Wow Head staffers like that are the ones who really run things on committees and for them to get swapped out when the Chair leaves isn't all that unusual. Could just as easily be new Chair wanting someone new as it is that person doing something wrong. zoux posted:I don't think that Trump can feel sexual attraction for other people so it's kind of like when Michael Jackson had kids sleep over, they really don't get what they're doing is creepy. Doesn't he like habitually cheat on his wives with good looking twenty-somethings?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Dexo posted:lol Hillary really thinks PA and VA are safe doesn't she. The media markets in VA are more expensive than average, so a VA campaign will tend to be heavier on field/mail than TV. Supercar Gautier posted:I'd say she thinks Florida would be such an effective knockout punch against Trump that it's a greater priority than any of the more blueish swing states. Did she say this in Florida? Because candidates will tell every BG state that they're the most important BG state. zoux posted:Every state not on that list is considered safe for one party or the other, we've known for a while this election would come down to about 9 states, of which trump needs 7 or 8. It's not so much that they're "safe" for one party or the other, it's that winning in those other states means you're landsliding. Clinton only wins Indiana or Georgia or whatever if she's on the way to 350-400 EVs. Similarly, if Trump is competitive in Minnesota he's probably got 270 in his pocket already.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:I'm really looking forward to the HBO movie about this campaign. Six Seasons and a Movie about this campaign you mean.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Antti posted:So this is like the equivalent of standing outside Trump Tower and shouting "BOY HOWDY IT SURE WOULD BE NICE IF MISTER TRUMP JUST DROPPED OUT, HUH?" I mean there could be a private ultimatum. "Either fake a heart attack and drop out or we'll pull all our help/turn on you and you'll lose by 10-15 points". If Trump at any point is faced with a choice between getting smoked or having to save face, he's going to pick face-saving as a matter of ego-survival. The trick is convincing Trump that's what he's looking at (which I'm not sure is possible). (But it doesn't matter if it's possible, only if RNC folks think it could be possible)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
iospace posted:He won't. He'll go "I'LL WIN THIS ANYWAY!" And continue to double down on the whole rigged angle. Right, I agree. But RNC folks strategizing this may not be thinking in those terms (or may realize it's a Hail Mary and be trying it anyhow).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:With a narrow majority it would only take a few Tea party assholes to torpedo any bill, and he's going to be dealing with at least thirty to forty of them. No, the only reason the Tea Party assholes/House Freedom Caucus have had ANY power is because of the refusal to work with Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
You guys realize this is gonna flip back around right? There's no way Trump can keep flailing like this for the next three months. Eventually folks will get tired of him rehashing his previous comments, or Hillary will [whatever the female equivalent of stepping on one's own dick is], or Manafort will roofie him for three days straight during the Olympics, and suddenly a poll will come out where he's down by 3-4 instead of 7-8, and everyone will be talking about how he's right back in the race.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Is there a version of this that's not Taylor-Swift-themed? Or something similar making the same case? I've got no issue with TSwift, but it's less easily shareable in professional contexts because of that stylistic decision.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I'd love thread-takes on a question I've been kicking around for a while. I'm pretty skeptical. I suspect a lot of Republicans will sit it out/vote third party OR justify voting Hillary as a one-off thing. They're not going to like Hillary, just see her as a necessary evil. Now if Ted Cruz or some sort of mini-Trump is the 2020 nominee, I think folks will pick up on the trend, but I think folks are writing this off as an anomaly because nobody on the right or even in the center wants to talk about how Trumpism is an inevitable outgrowth of the Republican Party. Geoff Peterson posted:If you're not down with Infosec Taylor Swift though, we can't be internet friends I've got nothing against Infosec Taylor Swift, but others might, hence my question.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:I think what he's asking is how many points would she need to be winning by to indicate such a huge electoral wave that the influence on the downticket races would result in a flipped House and Senate. I think such a question is unknowable, but if I'm speculating she'd have to have a blowout in just about every state. It's probably somewhere around 7-10 points. The 218th House of Representatives district is R+2, meaning it's two points more Republican than the country as a whole. So Clinton winning by 7 points overall means she wins the median House seat by 5, which seems like it'd be high enough to plausibly drag a good challenger past an average incumbent. Throw in the other couple of points (HRC+8,9,10) to account for mediocre challengers, long-time/savvy incumbents, recruiting failures, etc. So it'd require a real blowout.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Congress originates legislation. You got a problem with Clinton? Run for Congress ya lazy gently caress. Please don't encourage Goons to run for Congress. I have enough problems with "Some Dude"s waking up one day and deciding they want to be a Congressman. I'm the guy who has to pound into their skulls exactly what that entails. My Imaginary GF posted:'Precedent' is meaningless when it gets in the way of loving winning. More to the point, this "precedent" comes up roughly once or twice a century, right? And there's a 50/50 chance that by the time this comes up again in 2080 that we're the ones who'd benefit from this as an effort to keep Eugene Scalia Jr off the bench until North West can appoint someone better? Night10194 posted:Mike Pence really does not seem to be an especially smart man. Wasn't he in trouble for re-election before getting picked? Like in the hypothetical world where it was Trump/Gingrinch or whatever, wouldn't he be getting godstomped right now? Dr. Red Ranger posted:The 90's sound like a very frustrating time to have been politically aware and not a conservative head-job. The thing is that "sex with interns" wasn't really seen as being as bad then as it is now. Like the 90s was probably closer to Mad Men sort of attitudes about that than today is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It will come up roughly every four times a SCOTUS Justice is nominated to the court. That's assuming it's a real precedent and no additional criteria where the Senate and the Presidency have to be held by different parties. Nah - it'd only come up every fourth time a justice *dies*. It wouldn't be an issue for justices who retire, because they could retire in a different year.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The latter is not out of the question I realize that PEC is smarter than me, but as a guy on the ground in a battleground area, I really think the +4.5 Generic Congressional Preference doesn't mean a whole lot. In order to hit 218 we've got to sweep any seat that's R+2 or better. I don't know if Generic Congressional of +4.5 (which would be +2.5 in those marginal battleground seats) gets you past the incumbency advantages. emdash posted:
Clinton over 50! To me, that's the real thing. It demonstrates that this isn't just folks not wanting to back Trump, but it's actually folks voting for Hillary. Most of these leads have been "Trump chasing his leaning supporters into Undecideds" but having Clinton over 50% is REALLY nice to see. Grundulum posted:For the record, here are the PA congressional district leanings, per Wikipedia: R12, R10, R9, R6, R6, R6, R6, R6, R5, R2, R1, R1, E0, D4, D12, D16, D25, D39(!!). It doesn't translate that directly. You've got incumbency advantages to deal with as well - Democratic House challengers will trail Hillary between 3 and 5 points as a result of that, even assuming adequate candidates and campaigns. BonoMan posted:Headline News (yeah yeah yeah I have it on in the mornings to watch stupid videos while I get ready for work) said that Trump's Economics speech "silenced some critics." Goddamn. It actually did. It silenced the right-wing critics who were worried he'd try to deliver economic policies unacceptable to Republicans if elected. So basically just a chunk of the party leaders and think-tank guys.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:
#14 I think. Or maybe #88.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 21:47
|
|
Trump Pivot number...what are we on now?
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:So actual policy question: One of Donald Drumpf's few actual stated policy goals is repatriation of money stored offshore by American companies, untaxed. He's offering to let companies bring it into the American system with a one-time jubilee of a 10% tax on repatriated money. The companies actually DO want to repatriate the money, because it allows them to payout executive bonuses and stock dividends. It's a bad idea for two reasons: (a) it was a money loser in 2004-2005 when we tried it last and (b) doing the holiday encourages companies to keep holding money off-shore in subsequent years in hopes of getting another holiday. RuanGacho posted:That money is never coming back stateside, iirc both Bush and Obama tried an amnesty for money repatriation and the results are as you would expect when the appropriate analogy is calling your stolen cell phone and asking pretty please bring my gold studded car made of bearer bonds back, please? A good bit of money did come back stateside in the 2004-2005 holiday, but instead of being spent on creating jobs in America as the Bush admin contended, it instead went into the 1%'s pockets. Precambrian posted:Foley's about as politically toxic a guy can be before he's already in prison, so the fact that Trump's staff decided that it was ok to have him stand behind their candidate, so that the press can get tons of photos of Donald standing in front of a known pedophile, tells me that they've pretty much given up. Right, I'm not sure they'd have even known who he was, it's not like Trump has staffers specifically focused on Florida after all. Vienna Circlejerk posted:I think the true brilliance of this is not that it's likely to tip Utah, but that Arizona and Nevada have small but significant Mormon populations as well. Well and a lot of this is long game. Even if Clinton doesn't win Utah or Arizona or something, hopefully as some voters there break their "never voted for a Democrat" streak on Hillary Clinton, the cognitive dissonance will (a) cause them to hate her a bit less and (b) make them less reflexively repulsed by the idea of voting Dem in the future. FuzzySlippers posted:Despite Trump being absurdly easy to read none of the GOP managed to mount a coherent attack against him during the primary debates. poo poo like "New York values" lines were so bland and half assed it was embarrassing. All his mugging about being amazing in the debates was only because everyone was slow pitching at him for whatever reason. Dunno if they were all just that terrible (Rubio and Cruz) or just afraid of pissing of Trump/his supporters. Basically the latter, but slightly more complicated. Most of the attacks on Trump are attacks from the left - he's racist, he's greedy, he insults women, his policy ideas make no goddamn sense, etc. But it's not like Republicans can attack him for being too harsh on immigrants when they want to be harsh on immigrants too. The party of laissez faire can't really hit Trump on being a greedy shitbag, because that's basically a compliment for them. And it's not like the party of voodoo economics can criticize Trump for unrealistic policies with any credibility. Khisanth Magus posted:I think you are expecting more out of the swing state Democratic parties than they have to give. I don't know what originally caused it, but those parties have just completely lost the ability to field decent candidates or campaign for them. There is no way Ernst should have been elected in Iowa, but the Democratic party did their usual poo poo job. I didn't hear anything about the Democrat in that election, every one of their ads I saw it heard was just "Ernst bad, a vote for our guy is a vote against her" which really doesn't get people out to vote. It's pretty tough to be a swing state Democratic party post-2010. It's unpaid and thankless work, and national trends can screw you pretty hard. There's tons of money in Presidential years, but fundraising really dries up the other 3 years. Not to mention that a lot of these swing states used to be uncompetitive. In my state, the party at the CD or State level is still heavily populated by folks whose formative experience was the dark years of 1980-2004. Hopefully as the Obama generation of activists moves up through the ranks it'll get a bit better. Have Some Flowers! posted:How long do we think it takes for a Trump statement to reflect in polls? Let's say he makes a dumb statement on a Tuesday afternoon. How long does that news take to saturate. 2 days? I'd guess about 4-5 days. Polls are conducted over several days, and they spend some time in analysis before they're released. WoodrowSkillson posted:Also, no matter how much we panic here, Trump will not start WW3. He would be incredibly damaging, but there are enough checks and balances that he would not actually guide us into oblivion. Others have commented on the nukes, but from a conventional perspective, the President can invade literally anywhere for a period of like 60 days without Congressional approval. If they refuse to authorize the war, he's got 30 days to bring the troops home. zoux posted:If you contact any Hillary campaign organ, give them your email and say "I'm interested in volunteering", they'll never leave you alone. It's bonkers. Yeah. If you sign up on the website, or sign in at a rally and say you'll volunteer, your local HFA staffer will be assigned to call you like a day or two later.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Plus didn't he just showed up int he audience, Foley was invited? It varies wildly from event to event. If you're like on stage with the candidate, that's almost certainly intentional. But when a candidate is speaking on a stage in the middle of a room essentially "in the round" it's probably just random.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:5. (Starts talking about Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein) He's a co-defendant with Epstein in a civil suit accusing them of child rape, so I really hope he keeps pushing the Epstein/Clinton angle. VitalSigns posted:Yeah tax holidays are a con on their very face. The worst thing about them is that they're self-perpetuating. So many companies hold money overseas in lieu of paying 35% tax rate BECAUSE they anticipate either another holiday or a permanent rate cut. If we could credibly demonstrate that that's not happening in the next little while, a lot of that money might well come back anyhow. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I really genuinely don't understand how people in positions of political power don't get "hey, maybe I shouldn't get myself into sexually compromising positions or at least maybe not film it?" State legislator isn't always a full-time gig, and most of the seats aren't that competitive. If you're in a deep red/blue district, all you've got to do to be State Senator is beat out a few town councillors in a primary once. Don't get me wrong, I know plenty of local and state leg. electeds who are sharp & savvy, but it's not always a requirement. Plus don't forget that most of these guys are old fogeys who don't really get technology all that well, and whose views on sex were solidified back when intern banging contests were probably a real thing or whatever. A dude in a leadership position should know better though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:That's what all the WTA primaries this year were supposed to do. The WTA primaries were supposed to stop factional candidates like the Pauls or whatever from piecing together a bunch of delegates from 2nd/3rd-place finishes, and force the assorted publicity-seeking dumbfucks out of the race (hard to justify campaigning when you've got 0 delegates and no path to getting more). This would quickly narrow the field down to two or three, and the frontrunner would dispatch the last few rivals. The problem is that the factional candidates turned out to be the moderates, and it was Trump and Cruz in the top-2 positions. SquadronROE posted:Just wait until the truth comes out about Jade Helm 13, Hitlery and Obummer will be up a creek then! Pretty much what you'd expect. The military conducted the exercises they intended to, and then peaced out. Star Man posted:In 2006, Barbara Cubin (R) won her reelection in Wyoming by just under 1,000 votes. I don't know what magic the DNC pulled off in 2006 was, but I still dream of it finally working in a state that blood red. It was mostly GWB's doing. He screwed up so bad that we got a Democratic wave.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Estonia is a full fledged NATO member. Serious poo poo would go down if it was invaded. They're also one of the few to be spending 2% of GDP on military spending, so even under the Trump Doctrine, we'd still defend them. Latvia and Lithuania, while they shed blood on America's behalf in an Article 5 operation, do not meet that standard.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Her VP is a well-liked former governor and senator from The Republicans here are also heavily of the military/contractor variety (Pentagon AND Norfolk Naval Base/Shipyards). The sorts of folks who don't take kindly to insulting POWs or attacking Gold Star families. Trump probably thinks he's got VA in the bag because he's got a Winery and a Golf Course in VA though, so that's worth some points there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:This is the scenario in which we get 4 years of congressional fraud investigations on top of impeachment hearings because the big graphic has more red than blue but blue won! We're going to have 4 years of congressional investigations anyways, might as well be that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Apparently Trump is finally starting to organize offices and stuff. Isn't it a little late to actually get the running and build a ground game? Like, as in, he probably won't be able to get one up in time? It kinda depends on how quick he can get up to speed. A lot of organizing operates exponentially - right now most of our effort is on recruiting the volunteers we'll need for October/November. Like just in terms of numbers I'll be running a single canvass this weekend that'll probably knock 5-6 packets (50 doors/packet). In October, I'll be running 5-6 canvasses a weekend, some of them doing like 10-15 packets. On GOTV weekend (Saturday up through E-Day), I'll run 10-12 canvasses, most of them doing 15-20 packets. So if they're successful at bringing in volunteers despite the late start, they could still be OK. But we don't know how well that's gonna work out, because nobody's really been dumb enough to wait until the last minute like this. vyelkin posted:You mean Maine that Obama won by 15%, recently had a poll showing Clinton up by 10, and only elects Republican governors because it's one of the off-year governor states? That Maine? Plus Maine's Republican governor is only there because an Independent turned it into a three-way race two cycles in a row. vyelkin posted:Clinton probably used her unlimited warchest to hire all the good state campaign managers already, so they'll be run by Lewandowski-calibre bumbling idiots and will fail miserably. I'm skeptical this is a thing. Most folks on the field side seem to stay on one side of the aisle, because the entry-level field jobs pay so lousy that you're only getting into it if you're dedicated to the Party. Plus Democrats and Republicans run their campaigns differently in the field. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Trump throwing a big poo poo fit on losing is probably the best hope for seeing the right wing crumble. He'll be blaming everyone except himself for the loss so Republican heavies might get a lot of twitter blame. Hopefully Trump will try to drag the freedom caucus into his own party as he won't want to give up the spotlight and having his own party lets him stay on all the news networks till his heart explodes. Trump got a lot of folks who are reliable Republicans but don't vote in primaries to vote for him in primaries this year. If those guys stay politically active on the GOP side, that could really re-shape things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Huh?? Not directly relevant, but the actual Clinton-DNC argument is really interesting because it hasn't really been resolved, although it's been a bit sublimated. The way Hillary picks up GOP votes is by casting Trump as outside the normal/establishment GOP and thus OK not to vote for. But the only way Congressional challengers like the guy in my district win is by surgically attaching their (completely establishment) opponent to Donald Trump. So you've got sort of a weird dynamic in play. It's like a case study for how campaigns nominally on the same side can have very different goals and messaging needs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:You're looking at that solely from the Dem perspective. Maybe it's a district-by-district thing. My district is filled with anti-Trump Republicans, so maybe I'm just seeing it from that perspective. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Oh My God This is kinda scary - someone representing a major national campaign can just go on the air and blatantly lie about recent history in a massive way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I'm not sure there's anything Clinton can do to assist with a path to victory in districts like that. Tying establishment candidates to Trump isn't terribly effective because "This is the GOP taken to its natural conclusion" would require anti-Trump Republicans to link racism with their current and past beliefs. D&D may feel like this is true, but you can look throughout this thread and its predecessors to see the reaction of progressive white folks when presented with racism within their movement. Their conservative brethren tend to have an even more visceral negative reaction to any self-reflection on race. No, it's about tying the incumbents previous and current policy stances to Trump, and sort of leaning on "they're running on the same ticket" and "well has she denounced Trump? Nope". Like a lot of the strategy in these R+1 through R+4 districts is carried by the default assumption that the Republican incumbent is backing Trump (who they can't outright condemn). SedanChair posted:I...don't think CNN is going to have any use for Trump surrogates after the election. I could be wrong. I'm not sure Trump is capable of going away. Like I have a hard time imagining how he'd cope, because losing a Presidential race is really loving bruising to the ego and the psyche, and I'm not sure he'd handle it as well as folks like Kerry or McCain or Romney did, and their losses were narrow in comparison to the spanking Trump is on track for. Nelson Mandingo posted:For instance the claims he made about illegals aren't wrong, illegal immigrants from Mexico do commit crime disproportionally to legal immigrants. But he messaged it in such a way that implies that illegal immigrants are all rapists and by extension mexicans are rapists. It's important to note that a lot of those sorts of metrics are biased by "being an undocumented immigrant" being itself a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I don't think I've even seen Fox News try the "Bush was a secret democrat" approach, and they love sticking D's next to any Republican currently being scandal'd. Nobody ever tries it like that openly, but certainly "George W. Bush failed conservatism" is a popular angle, ditto "he wasn't a true conservative".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/764082907732332544 I wanna highlight this tweet, because it's crucial. Not only does Trump need to stop losing ground, he needs to start making up ground, he's only got 12 weeks to make up a double-digit deficit in some of these states. Like even if his outbursts have stopped costing him voters, he's spinning his wheels in media cycles he needs to be moving forward in. Gyges posted:The best part is that Hillary hasn't even opened the oppo file on Trump. All the team has been doing is let him hang himself with his current utterances. I wouldn't be surprised if she starts feeding the press some deep cuts from Trump's greatest hits past in a month or so. Or perhaps has a fist full of old skeletons on the ready to drop at the debates when Trump tries to Trump his way over her. I kinda imagine her staffers putting this sort of stuff together, getting it all ready for sign-off, and then another Trump outburst happens and it just keeps getting backburnered.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Johnson? Evan McMullin, he's the #NeverTrump candidate for President.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The media isn't covering much of the reality that Trump has zero campaign infrastructure anywhere. That's going to be a massive disadvantage come November. Say what you will about Romney's messed up analytics and terrible internal polls, but he at least had a semblance of a ground game. He's starting to open offices. How well he can scale so late in the game is anyone's guess. Asimo posted:Speaking as a Connecticut resident, Honestly, Clinton+7 makes this one of Trump's more winnable states. Like it's more of a battleground than VA/MI/PA. TheScott2K posted:I really don't get why they're giving him any more time than the other idiots who are only on a dozen states' ballots. Maybe it's the words "CIA Operative." Like they're laying the groundwork for when it comes out that that's a bunch of bullshit so they can get a few segments out of it. Because the Washington Media Bubble doesn't realize how out of touch they are.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 16:36
|
|
.
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's also a matter of making Obama dance to their specific phrasing. Trump and other Republicans are trying to control what Democrats say and don't say. If Obama doesn't use the magic words, they get to say he's not "getting serious" about "terrorism," and if he does use the words, it looks like they cowed him into using the words. Just playground bullying writ large. Controlling the language we use in politics is a key part of Republican strategy - look at things like the "death tax" for another example. Night10194 posted:I think the purest, most beautiful part of this is it being RTed by Lewandowski. Same, it's lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 03:40
|
|