Trump

[gilesgoat]

I think there are two parts to it. First she is not very charismatic, unlike her husband or Obama. Even Trump in his own way is more relatable than Clinton (though his negatives vastly outweigh his positives). Second Republicans have spend the last year or more attacking her, over Benghazi and her e-mail server. They’ve used their majorities in Congress to hold hearings, pursued every avenue of investigation. They have turned up nothing, no evidence of wrongdoing, but the sheer weight of coverage has weighed down on her.

I’m hopeful it won’t matter. We now have 3-4 months of a straightforward election campaign, where voters get to compare the candidates. I.e. voters will be able to see for themselves what she is like, free of Republican smear campaigns, and contrast her with Trump, whose shown little inclination to moderate and rein in his extremism since winning the primaries.

Starting with the Democratic Party Convention, which starts today. Compared to last week’s Republican one it should be much better – more unified, better run, better attended - and so give her a boost in the polls to set her up for a successful campaign.

From my little understanding one BIG thing that seems to go in favour of Trump is that "Trump does not belong to the usual circle of stuff" .. he's seen like an "outsider" with "maybe more possibility/will to change things" ( I don't say this is true, but this seems to be the perception ) while my understanding is also that Hillary is seen like "one of them, the usual ones" and some people think she has their own agendas.

I think it's a common situation, absolutely NOT to be underestimated ( see what happened here too ) , where lot of people - with quite some rights - perceive a situation of "stale" in the established order of things like "it's always the same no matter what".

Now Trump sounds a lot like "a destructive force" ( and maybe it is more destructive than creative ) BUT people are SO FED UP of "always the same story" that are inclined to think/say "at this point let's make all crash down and see what happens" ..

Dangerous situation, but you can not 100% "blame" for seeing it happening because it is really "stale" with things going too slow or not at all, gives you the feeling ( and it's more than a feeling of course ) that "the whole politics is fixed and little moveable" ..

It's going to be really interesting to see what is going to come out from all this situation, but certainly "the Trump phenomenon" proves there are some very deep issues/problems that need to be sorted in some appropriate way and that so far many people not been happy at all of the response they got.

Now I don't think that Trump has the capability to sort them but he's really "an echo" of the exasperation and frustration that leads to 'extremes' some people are in.

It's "extreme" .. like the problems as well ..

He's loud and mouth and yelling and such .. but "he touched some chords in a certain way" .. I don't say "correct" but certainly "in a very emotional way".

Now try to put VS that someone telling you "no man all cool, stay calm, I promise, we'll sort it all out" .. "there's no match" .. you can't win that thing THAT way I think.

It's "too late" for going "calm and nice and easy".

[Dio]

Nate Silver is saying that if it was held today it's a Trump win. Scary.

[pogo]

Yes, but polling right now is especially unreliable.

Here's how to interpret the new polls showing Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton

(basically polls before or after the conventions are much better predictors of the eventual result than those during them)

The Democrats have the advantage of going second, which means they get in effect reply to Trump. Especially useful given the unpredictability of the Republican Convention. I would guess they will be keen to offer a positive vision to counter the highly negative one of his acceptance speech.

[KlaxonCow]

Another thing about Hillary is that, while her husband was President, the Republicans had a campaign of perpetually throwing shit at them.

David Brock used to be a Republican and, as you can see in the clip, was one of the folks that the Republicans got to go on TV to repeatedly throw accusations and rumours and bullshit at the Clintons to undermine them with the public. Knowing full well that none of it was true.



And you can compare this to how, with Obama, there's the rumours and accusations that he's not American but really a Kenyan. That he's a "secret Muslim". And also a Communist. And so on and so forth.

This is a Republican strategy. You just keep throwing bullshit at your enemies. And it doesn't matter if it's true, and it doesn't matter if, upon examination, it's all perfectly ridiculous.

It's the notion of "no smoke without fire" in reverse.

You create smoke. Tons of smoke. Smoke absolutely everywhere. But there is no fire. There never was any fire. But by creating so much smoke, you get people thinking there must be a fire somewhere, right? Look at all this smoke. There's got to be a fire somewhere, yes?

Get them suspecting there's a fire, worrying that there's a fire, panicked and distressed that there might be a fire. Getting them to psychologically smell smoke whenever Clinton or Obama appear anywhere, even though there really never was any fire. It was all just a made-up piece of bullshit all along.

And the grand problem with this strategy is that, unfortunately, it does actually work. Which is why they've kept doing it.

"Show us your birth certificate, Obama!" / "Obama sounds like Osama, so he's got to be a Muslim in disguise, right?" / etc.

Keep repeating "the Big Lie" and, eventually, it sticks. Even if never 100% genuinely believed, it still leaves behind a tarnished reputation. "Smoke damage", you might say. A constant suspicion. A bad feeling about them. An unease.

Hillary's been a target of this insinuation strategy for a long time. As First Lady. As Secretary of State. And now as a Presidential nominee.

I fear that, simply enough, some of that "smoke damage" has stuck to her.

Even though, indeed, the Republicans have thrown ever single possible investigation they can at that thing with her email server and, no, there's nothing there. But still they push it and push it and push it. Because it creates negative headlines - smoke - about your opponent and that's all they actually want and need.

[pogo]

And the grand problem with this strategy is that, unfortunately, it does actually work. Which is why they've kept doing it.

Define “work” ! Five of the last six elections the Republicans have lost the popular vote (they won four of those elections, the odd one out Al Gore got more votes but Bush won on the recount in Florida). And things are not getting any easy for them. Every election cycle Blacks and Hispanics make up a greater share of the electorate, and they are Democrats most reliable supporters.

In particular it did not work with Obama, when if anything Republican venom was even stronger. There was the racist stuff including Trump’s birther movement and other similar aspirations on his race or religion. There was an attempt to paint him as too weak and liberal, too willing to give in to aggression. All this is much harder to do with Clinton. They could pick on her for being a woman but so are most voters. She is very hawkish for a Democrat with lots of experience, so weak and liberal won’t stick either.

[zip accident]

In particular it did not work with Obama, when if anything Republican venom was even stronger. There was the racist stuff including Trump’s birther movement and other similar aspirations on his race or religion.

Aspersions

[KlaxonCow]

Define “work” !

Well, I meant it works in terms of it doing what it intends to do, in having a negative reputational impact on its victims that significant chunks of the populace still inexplicably take seriously, even long after it's been totally debunked.

But, no, not "works" in terms of it single-handedly winning elections or anything so drastic as that.

[F-ZeroOne]

(The early bit they had were Colbert visits Stewart in his remote cabin to pull his old character out of retirement was amusing too, albeit it less substance)

I tried to link to that as well but had problems trying to do so.

[pogo]

This one?


Though I thought this best of the week:

[F-ZeroOne]

According to the "i" today, Trump has stated when asked by an interviewer if France has been "compromised by terrorism" that such nations may be subjected to "extreme vetting". According to Trump "They totally have been [compromised by terrorism]. And you know why? Its their own fault. Because they allowed people to come into their territory."

He really is not great at thinking statements through, because hes effectively just said that America is entirely to blame for 9/11.

[F-ZeroOne]

This one?

Thats the fella!

[Barney]

Is it just me, or does Jon Stewart look really, really ill? I know he's aged and his hair/beard doesn't help, but his face looks like he's got... a really serious illness, IYSWIM.

[pogo]

Looks fine to me. A bit thinner but otherwise the same. It’s not the first time he’s sported a beard, he did so when directing Rosewater, on a sabbatical from the show. He had grey hair and a grey beard then, so looks no older now.

[Barney]

I dunno, I've seen that look many, many times throughout my nursing career - and it's not the beard or grey hair. It's pretty distinctive. Could be wrong though.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Does Bernie deserve his own thread yet? Media stories are implying his supporters are refusing to support Hillary. He seems to have attracted a group of free-thinking voters who feel disenfranchised and want their democracy back.