Trump

[zip accident]

There are plenty of Hilary haters who still back her simply because she's not Trump.

The problem is, are there more Trump haters who back him because he's not Hilary?

[pogo]

I don't thing it says much at all that Bernie endorsed Hilary. Only that Bernie isn't totally fucking insane, because if he doesn't do that he improves Trump's chances.

There are plenty of Hilary haters who still back her simply because she's not Trump.

I doubt it. She is not much loved by many Democrats, unlike Sanders and Obama, or even her husband when he was President. But whether someone hates her or not is determined largely by their political affiliations. I.e. it divides on partisan grounds, and hating her is almost exclusively a Republican trait.

It’s not particular to her either. Despite Obama being one of the most popular and successful politicians of his generation, there is still a hardcore of Republicans that hate him, that think him foreign, or Muslim, or socialist. A lot of that is racist, tied up in the colour of his skin or his name, but much of it would happen to any Democratic president.

Or Bill Clinton, also a popular and capable politician. Republicans went to extraordinary lengths to try and destroy him, exploiting his marital infidelities to try and discredit him, but failed. It was hypocritical anyway; they have no problems with Republicans with much more public and reckless records of marital discord, such as Newt Gingrich when Bill Clinton was president or Trump now.

So the hate and outrage at Hilary Clinton. It‘s all on the Republican side and largely manufactured by them. It’s one reason they should lose. As while Trump deserves his reputation for being a horrible person, Clinton doesn’t. Moderate voters are realising that, or if they have not will have lots more chances in the coming months to compare the two of them and decide which is fit to be president.

[pogo]

This poll result shows Donald Trump’s single biggest problem

So this, then, is the election as it stands today: Most Americans don’t like Donald Trump and they don’t think he’s qualified, temperamentally fit, or sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president. Most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton, but they do believe she’s qualified, temperamentally fit, and sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president.

[zip accident]

This poll result shows Donald Trump’s single biggest problem

So this, then, is the election as it stands today: Most Americans don’t like Donald Trump and they don’t think he’s qualified, temperamentally fit, or sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president. Most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton, but they do believe she’s qualified, temperamentally fit, and sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president.

The problem with that picture is "Regardless of whether or not you'd vote for her/him" because what matters is will you vote for her/him, not do you think they are competant, and I fear that a lot of USAians are going to vote for someone they believe is incompetant, probably as a protest vote because nobody else is going to vote for someone that incompetant (see also Brexit).

[gumboot]

Bloody Brexit! Pre-Brexit my emergency evacuation plan was to go back to the UK if Trump became president and survived now than a few months without impeachment, but Britons fucked that right up.

[pogo]

The problem with that picture is "Regardless of whether or not you'd vote for her/him" because what matters is will you vote for her/him, not do you think they are competant, and I fear that a lot of USAians are going to vote for someone they believe is incompetant, probably as a protest vote because nobody else is going to vote for someone that incompetant (see also Brexit).

Many will (vote for someone incompetent). US politics is very tribal, much more than here. People identify as Republican or Democrat and vote that way, no matter who is the candidate. It probably helps that lots of elections happen at the same time too, so voters can turn out to support “The Republican Party” and put their cross next to every Republican no matter the individual.

But those people do not decide the election. Us elections are mostly decided by independent voters who do not have a strong affiliation with either party, and who can switch their vote depending on their judgement of the parties, their candidates, their policies. If you can win most independent voters then with your own supporters you should win.

[Darkflame]

There are plenty of Hilary haters who still back her simply because she's not Trump.

The problem is, are there more Trump haters who back him because he's not Hilary?

Certainly a lot seem to claim that. "not as bad a Hillary" seems a much more common reason Trump supports give that I see online then any real pro-Trump statements.

[tufty]

[IronGiant]

Is Trump now inciting violence against Clinton?

https://twitter.com/CandaceSmith_/statu ... 3957787649



The media are all over this now.

[pogo]

Best reply to that:

@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.

[gravy]

He's denied it!

It's called the power of unification - 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.

Seems legit

@pogo: not super keen on Warren's retort. It's swimming in the same pool of ad hominem attack rhetoric as most of Trump's output

[KlaxonCow]

Check out the guy in the red shirt (with the white beard) behind Trump as he says it.

He's a Trump supporter, but his face turns to shocked disbelief at that comment. So, you know, it ain't just "the liberal media" misinterpreting him here, if we are to believe his "organising protest" explanations, as that guy's face shows that his own supporters were also interpreting it that way too.

And, of course, that's all it needs. It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't mean it in a particular way, if his "misspeaking" were interpreted by some crazy with a gun as Trump "officially authorising" them to conduct an assassination attempt on President Hillary, as she would be by then.

(In fairness, the woman next to him that he glances towards just smiles and laughs at the comment, if you see the longer versions of the footage, as this one cuts off a bit early. I don't think that's because she's evil and wants to see Clinton dead or anything, though. She took it as the "black humour" joke that Trump meant it to be, is all.)

But I don't believe the excuse anyway.

We've seen enough of how Trump delivers speeches and that's the demeanour of him giving a humorous aside. It was a joke. A massively inappropriate joke that he should have known better from making and, were he in a different position, a touch of black humour that we could laugh off as "not serious".

The problem is that he's a Presidential candidate. He's addressing the nation. This is a very serious issue for both sides. Hopefully, still, no-one would actually take the joke seriously to genuinely carry it out, but he's no longer in a position where he can appropriately do so.

[pogo]

@pogo: not super keen on Warren's retort. It's swimming in the same pool of ad hominem attack rhetoric as most of Trump's output

The difference is that her attack is accurate. OK, calling Clinton “a girl” is a bit below the belt, but I doubt she will mind; other than that it’s fair. It’s why he so dislikes Warren. She has no formal role in Clinton’s campaign, is not a senior Democrat – she is just a senator.

But she has a strong analytical mind from her time in academia, is excellent at presenting complex ideas in clear, plain ways, and has been applying these skills to calling Trump’s bluster and bullshit for many months, like this. Her tweets are especially effective. Best of all Trump can’t help taking the bait and replying, usually with an appalling racist slur.

[gravy]

But she has a strong analytical mind from her time in academia, is excellent at presenting complex ideas in clear, plain ways, and has been applying these skills to calling Trump’s bluster and bullshit for many months, like this. Her tweets are especially effective. Best of all Trump can’t help taking the bait and replying, usually with an appalling racist slur.

I know, which is where the disappointment stems from. She thinks the US public is thick. She may be right. Or wrong. Either the implications aren't great.

[pogo]

Quite the opposite. Other politicians have a tendency to talk down to or talk over the heads ordinary voters. Obama is an exceptional politician but he can be bookish, remote, even dismissive of ordinary voters. Remember this from 2008?

They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Warren though is much better able to communicate effectively with ordinary voters. Partly it‘s her education background, partly it’s that she has spent a lot of time dealing with the issues affecting ordinary voters, in particular their finances and mortgages, that being her area of expertise. And of course it what she cares about more than anything.

Trump on the other hand can also communicate with ordinary voters. But it is all bullshit. He definitely thinks the US public thick as he is trying to con them. But it is not working; only a small minority are taken in. Others might vote for him out of loyalty to the party, or as they are fed up with regular politicians. But his main platform is a con, and it is taking in few people.