American voters have decided how much risk they want. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the “more risk” candidates and they each outperformed expectations. Added together, the higher-risk candidates (Trump and Sanders) got far more votes than the safe candidate, Clinton....BUT: Check out Hillary's new ad:
I have said before that there are no trained persuaders working on the Clinton campaign. That comes through in all of their decisions. Their decision to use “risk” as a warning to the public at the same time the public is begging for more risk is an enormous persuasion error. It borders on a self-kill shot.
To be fair, Trump scares the pants off of about one-third of the public. So “risky” will hit home for those voters. The problem for team Clinton is that Trump has complete control of his persona. All he needs to do is act less risky for a few months to prove his campaign persona was all for effect. That process is well underway.
४ मे, २०१६
The problem with "too risky" as an argument against Trump.
Scott Adams notes the Clinton campaign is going for the "too risky" attack on Trump, but predicts it's not going to work because...
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
George W. used the "risky" argument against Al Gore. I remember in one debate he saying if Gore were around when the light bulb was invented, he would have denounced it as a "risky anti-candle scheme."
Everyone is tired of people being denounced as xenophobic bigots. I predict that this ad will increase Trump's support rather than erode it.
The risky thing isn't going to work. Hillary clearly isn't a risk to Goldman Sachs. She's not a risk to the entrenched grievance industry. That much is clear and Trump will easily make that case.
But, Hillary is a risk to the safety and security of our embassy staff in places like Libya and by extension, a risk to the safety and security of our country. Hillary is a risk to the jobs of thousands of coal miners and by extension to the economic well being of country.
Trump clearly intends on making that case and he's pretty good at that stuff.
Hillary Clinton is a known high risk.
Donald Trump may be too risky.
Trump claims he is not a member of the PC (i.e. pro-choice, politically correct, progressively corrupt, perpetually confused) church which means that his risk profile is constrained.
That said, what difference does it make to Clinton now? Keep watching the video.
". . . the public is begging for more risk is an enormous persuasion error" Yeah, sure, "make America great again," no more free trade, America first, build that wall = begging for more risk. More evidence of what voters are "thinking."
As O showed, not much "persuasion" is needed; economic conditions + approval of sitting prez + GOTV drive outcomes. Unless the left pulls a Nader--they seem to have recovered from their momentary insanity in 2000--the Dems don't have to worry. Nor the GOP: we'll get a Dem either way.
But Gabriel is right: "Everyone is tired of people being denounced as xenophobic bigots. I predict that this ad will increase Trump's support rather than erode it." Trump needs to make this an anti-PC, FU election. He will. Should help at least with GOP GOTV.
I can tell you from my far too many HRC supporting friends on FB, the self-delusional meme they have rolled out is that they are the defenders of "rationality" & "experience" in politics. This "too risky" ad is of a piece with that line of thought.
What they're really mum about are questions of whether they are the partisans of honesty & morality in politics, because, at some point, without those two, claims of "rationality" just seem like an after the fact defense for their Will To Power.
I see this ad as far too much preaching to the choir. I mean, if you don't know by now that Trump is a loose cannon at the podium, & have weighed your judgements of his character according to how important that fact is to you (i.e. a lot or not much at all), you're really too stupid to be voting.
Some would say that it is risky to put highly classified material on an unsecured server.
Some would say that it is risky to be at the complete mercy of the Department of Justice, due to having placed said material on said server as a deliberate political calculation to stay one step removed from the law as applied to any other citizen working for the US Government.
I could go on.
Can we trust Hillary to evaluate risk? Does she evaluate it as it applies to Hillary Rodham Clinton or as it applies to the nation at large?
Past performance may not be a guide to future results, but I think we have a track record. Or you can believe her lies.
Mind you, I don't even support Trump. But.
also: Will she let Republicans speak for her throughout her administration?
These people and these arguments couldn't stop Tromp from getting the Republican nomination. Why does Hillary! think they'll stop him from winning the presidency?
It's just like Hillary to try the obvious approach, a tactic that has already failed (The Hill-Shills have said nothing about Trump that hasn't already been said with even more vitriol than the GOPe surrogates at the Power Line blog to no avail.) expecting different results because she is who she is. Hillary has been playing the Don't you realize who I am? game since 1993. It's party to blame for her defeat at the hands of the ultimate tabula rasa known as Barack Hussein Obama, and her stellar career at State.
The GOP candidates tore up Romney and he never recovered. Trump is probably less susceptible than Romney to character assassination as his character is not his strength,
It's going to be interesting. The Democrats need to control their supporters, like those attacking the Trump rally in Orange County, but they will not be able to do so.
The riots will be worse than 1968 and they will have the same effect.
This is a good ad by Clinton and I think Adams is stuck in 2d thinking.
This ad isn't about Trump. Wake up. She just lost to Bernie but she is acting like the Democrat nominee. This ad helps to solidify that in the minds of Democrat voters. Bernie who? Isn't it Hillary vs Trump now?
Their was a news story the other day, I think last week actually, they said Hillary has stopped spending money on the primary. This was before she got schlonged. This was a leak to the news. Purposeful. Meant to create the impression of being inevitable.
That's the point of this ad. It's her primary campaign strategy. Not her general election campaign strategy.
Will it work?
I think, based off of Althouse response and the commenters, yes, it's working.
Blogger Michael K said...
The GOP candidates tore up Romney and he never recovered. Trump is probably less susceptible than Romney to character assassination as his character is not his strength,
They convinced us Romney was a bully in school, hated animals, had binders full of women and was dismissive of 47% of the country.
We can only hope they try and convince us that Trump is of low moral character. Most people will probably say, you mean, like her and her husband? Sadly, no one seems to care about that anymore.
I can't think of a negative line of advertising that will work against Trump.
Trump will hit back. You exposed our secrets to Putin and Xi, and you're calling me risky? The Clinton risk is more rape and harassment in the White House. And by the way, I'm hearing you're having serious health problems -- America can't afford the risk of a sick prez.
There are so many reasons Hillary is a greater risk for this country:
1) Libya
2) Benghazi
3) The private server and disregard for the law
4) The film maker she had put away to direct attention away from her own mistakes
5) Her "foundation" which exists to launder money for the Clintons
6) Her husband's history of sexual harassment
7) She uses our laws as politcal weapons
8) She doesn't learn from her mistakes because she doesn't admit her mistakes
9) She's a very bad manager - see political campaigns
10) Sidney Blumenthal is her right hand man
11) She's an Alinksy devotee just like Obama - but she's more committed to putting her beliefs to practice than Obama who prefers to golf.
12) We have every reason to believe she will load up her staff with women who think just like her.
Trump does not look so scary compared to Hillary.
I found that ad pretty hilarious....can't decide if it's because of Trump's buffoonishness or if it's because of the absurdity that this kind of ad will make him more popular.
Is delirium one of the stages of grief? Because I think I'm there.
I love to see the "scared" people talk about how DT is going to have brownshirts marching and our rights stripped etc etc. Without irony. These are the very people who will be blowing him for a place in his government in 188 days. They will so regret these public remarks.
The 1/3 of Americans "scared" of Trump is a made up number, pulled out of some pundits ass.
What they should be "scared" of are their lovely supporters out there in the streets with masks and molotov cocktails. And their inarticulate OWS arm and their BLM arm and their War on Women meme. Because these are the tentacles of the left that cannot be controlled and which cannot control themselves.
The GOP and Dem Establishment have failed. Many voters just want to blow things up. Trump is change.
"I can't think of a negative line of advertising that will work against Trump."
I don't either. What we will see are riots and, if we are unlucky, a terrorist attack.
We have john Kerry declaring "red lines" in Syria now. You cannot parody this stuff.
The ISIS people will want to do what they did in Spain when they blew up commuter tarns the week before the election.
It defeated the conservatives. It won't work here but Obama and Kerry are telling them it will.
"Many voters just want to blow things up. Trump is change."
Dave, I think you are getting it.
I figured Hil's editors were finishing up something good. That was pretty good. They began by laying down a base from Romney and went from there.
This Adams guy seems to think Trump can flip a switch and be less risky sounding. I thought that switch was supposedly thrown some time ago. The Oswald shit was old school Trump he didn't even need to stoop to...but he did.
Oh..I think that switch is a momentary one that reliably springs back.
Self kill shot.
Heh.
People have listened to pretty talk for 8 years from a guy who has demonstrably not helped anything, anywhere on the globe. People are sick of pretty talk which doesn't sound "risky" at all, just pretty. Or hectoring as we are seeing from the old lady who does not look like she has the energy to take her another 188 days.
All the handwringing and "fear" will disappear in a month from all the #NotTrump crowd. Except for the doctrinaires who always lose and lose proudly, keeping as they do their virtue on display.
None of those people in Hillary's ad mocking Trump are going to be president, either.
I feel like the only person left that believes he says these things to counter the unfair press insisting he play their unfair game.
The Thomason's long ago told the Clinton's never to apologize. It's worked for them for a long time.
All of that in the attack ad may be true... But Hillary Clinton is worse. I won't be voting for him, I'll be voting AGAINST her!
When your sole argument for why those skeptical of Trump should vote for him is "He might not be as bad as Hillary" you aren't persuading anybody.
Hillary is the architect of what Obama called a "shit show" in Libya. If Trump can keep himself from doing stuff like that, he's better than Hillary right there.
Nobody likes Hillary. The black vote is a corrupt bargain with the Democrat give aways funding. They hate her more than the Conservatives do.
Middle class American white voters like Trump a lot. They are not into religious cults and Church Lady morality slandering a good President for using
every day bad words. They accept that in politics as thay do in Bobby Knight Basketball.
What the tsunami of voters wants right now is an implacable resolve to win for them in perilous times. Trump has that. Hillary ONLY wins for herself, and everybody knows it.
She's certainly blessed in her opponents' choice of candidate.
Here's another mistake:
Hillary says, "the whole world is counting on her to beat Trump." We've had seven years of a President taking the side of the world and shaking his finger at America.
Trump says, "Make America great again."
As Peggy Noonan said in a recent column, "Trump is on America's side."
What side is Hillary putting herself when she makes this statement?
Hillary is the architect of what Obama called a "shit show" in Libya.
True, but Trump is the architect of the "shit show" in every 3-second sound bite that comes out of his mouth.
Unfortunately.
I'm just saying. I want a good 20 - 30% of what Trump is about. But that visceral reaction to his inability to ever rise above anything is a resilient problem.
I think Hillary will win, unfortunately enough. I wish it weren't so, but at the end of the day, she's able to quietly and soberly nod her bee-bonnet donning head in a way that her bots find reassuring. When she yells, it's like Los Alamos testing site, but apparently just a smidgen less off-putting than Trump's inability to be smarter about his taunts.
Hillary has horrible unfavorables. It's possible she could lose it. But she's been practicing at this for decades. Make no mistake, a Hillary presidency will feel to me like a season in North Korea - and I wish I could do something about it. But Trump has a way of being a scattershot.
The best hope is that a scandal will undo her soon enough, but those fuckers sure are slippery. They are virtuosos in the art of the sleazy, corrupt, legal "gray area". What I think you're going to do is hammer home as much as you can about their stupid CGI money-laundering front, with every shady connection that comes out of it. Megan Kelly just reported on a Ukrainian billionaire donor who supplied Iran supplies in violation of the sanctions she enacted.
These things must be exposed and deposed. You will have allies in the fight - not only on the right.
Limbaugh: Trump Beats Hillary in Landslide
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/05/04/my_gut_trump_beats_hillary_in_landslide
Blogger Christopher said...
When your sole argument for why those skeptical of Trump should vote for him is "He might not be as bad as Hillary" you aren't persuading anybody
You'd have an excellent point if that were the sole argument.
Clearly, the "risk" meme is meant to solidify Hillary's support among the 20%, most of whom vote Republican in most years, but may not this year. Most of the twenty percent have no particular incentive to take on a lot of political risk (bad for business!), so if the meme works, that would confine Trump's support to the bottom 80%. However, a lot of the bottom 80% consists of racial minorities. Hispanics are scared of Trump, and the Democrats, as commenters note, have bought the black vote. So Trump would have to win pretty overwhelmingly among white voters in the bottom 80%. That leaves him a very narrow path to victory.
Yeah, Paul. Rush is making amends for spouting Cruz nonsense the last three months. He still had his connection with realty all of the time.
Rhythm and Balls: "She's certainly blessed in her opponents' choice of candidate."
I don't think that Bernie is all that bad.
I don't think that Bernie is all that bad.
Neither do I. Pity he didn't enter the fray sooner, though. It's possible he might have done her much more damage.
@sean,
Hispanics are scared of Trump, and the Democrats, as commenters note, have bought the black vote.
Maybe not as tightly as one would first think, especially with the black vote. We've bandied this topic about on previous occasions in this forum, & now, even some black lefty commentators are worried about Trump siphoning off just enough black votes to make the difference.
I'm trying to figure out if that's a Pro-Trump ad.
It seems like it. Trotting out Repub LOSERS to attack Trump.
@YoungHegelian "I can tell you from my far too many HRC supporting friends on Facebook..."
Which reminds me, somewhere on Reddit in the past few days there is a thread on young women that are pissed because they keep receiving pro-Clinton feeds they did not sign up for. Many young women do NOT like her, and are having to unsubscribe to things they didn't sign up for. Facebook is the enemy!
Also, with young women that are not brainwashed feminazi's but tended to lean left, I think there is a chance they'll go Trump. What honest power does HRC have vs say, Ivanka, who is probably close to second in command at Trump Inc., in the eyes of a young woman? Tired, hacking, droll, HRC, and her pervert husband are revolting to these women.
A full minute of Trump being criticized by a bunch of losers, little men, and has-beens.
Is there a Trump mole in the Hillary! PR camp?
R&B's: "Pity he didn't enter the fray sooner, though."
I believe this to be quite true.
Hillary possesses weaknesses that would have been easy for Sanders to exploit. Why he chose not to, and still does not (though oddly enough he does mention them tangentially as potential Trumpian angles of attack) eludes me.
Why would he rule out legitimate criticisms of Hillary?
Yes, yes..it's a pro Trump ad...according to full-on Trumpsters. But they're not the intended audience.
A good ad for Hillary. What's interesting to me is that this is the sort of ad that republicans could have compiled and run against Clinton and Obama, but didn't. Not once. The people in the cheap seats even said they should, but the money men and the consultants didn't pull the trigger. Interesting isn't it?
like that "skyrocketing" electricity quote. Dry powder for both cycles..stunning.
"You'd have an excellent point if that were the sole argument."
Then please Eric, tell me why as a conservative I should vote for Trump; because pretty much every Pro-Trump post in this thread boils down to "Well Hillary is worse".
Then please Eric, tell me why as a conservative I should vote for Trump; because pretty much every Pro-Trump post in this thread boils down to "Well Hillary is worse".
Well, he has a positions page. Peruse that and see what there's to like and not like.
I didn't vote for Trump in the Ohio primary, but I love the way he pisses people off.
Romney and Bush, two characters that have been rejected by voters denouncing Trump. This comes off as a pro-Trump ad.
Blogger Christopher said...
"You'd have an excellent point if that were the sole argument."
Then please Eric, tell me why as a conservative I should vote for Trump; because pretty much every Pro-Trump post in this thread boils down to "Well Hillary is worse".
As already mentioned, read his position papers. Lots of reasons in there.
However, those papers aren't why I'm voting for him. I'm voting for him because of the Supreme Court. He has said he will put Pryor on the court, and his favorite justices are Thomas and Scalia.
These days, SCOTUS makes all the laws. They've been there for 200 years we have just never noticed, until the court notices.
Not voting for Trump means helping Hillary which means losing the Supreme Court.
You are wasting your time eric.
The #NeverTrumpers are determined to put Hillary in the White House....because "conservatism!"
Or something.
Nah, the #NeverTrumpers will come around, or most of them will. The true believers lose every election because they like being pure, like being losers and put upon by reality.
I like Sanders a lot, love his spunk and love his energy. Most of his message is just silly, especially as it pertains to the economy but then he has to stir up the crowd with something and the best is with an emotional issue like the sucking economy, the economy that has left millions in a hopeless position. Trump understands this. Bernie understands this. Hillary does not understand this. Bob Shieffer and his ilk do not understand this. I predict that Trump will appeal to a lot of the Bernie crowd once they calm down from being fucked by the Dem establishment, once they begin to listen to his message.
I don't see the country voting for a hectoring old woman who promises to put people out of work. Promises. With a proud fucking smirk.
Blogger eric said...
...
However, those papers aren't why I'm voting for him. I'm voting for him because of the Supreme Court. He has said he will put Pryor on the court, and his favorite justices are Thomas and Scalia.
As obvious as that is, nothing is ever easy with Trump.
We do know that Hillary won't put any Scalias on the Court. That much is certain. We also know that Trump is close to Jeff Sessions. It is the only decent or encouraging thing I can say about Trump; that he has seemingly chosen Jeff Sessions as his rabbi in the U.S. Senate. And Sessions would be a good advisor on nominees for the federal bench.
But eric you say that Trump's "favorite justices are Scalia and Thomas." It would be nice to believe that, but of course we are talking about Trump. Trump, who got into this scrape just weeks after declaring how much he liked Scalia:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/trump-piles-on-scalia-supports-racial-preferences.php
So yeah, eric. Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for the Supreme Court's future. Donald Trump might be good, or he might be bad, and Trump probably wouldn't even know the difference. But the way in which Trump could be a disaster is by losing to Mrs. Clinton in November. Which is what my realistic expectation is.
The Republicans just got an awful nominee.
Christopher said...
"You'd have an excellent point if that were the sole argument."
Then please Eric, tell me why as a conservative I should vote for Trump; because pretty much every Pro-Trump post in this thread boils down to "Well Hillary is worse".
5/4/16, 8:32 PM"
That is more than enough of a good reason for me. This time it's important: vote for the buffoon and not the felonious traitor. Trump the Bitch! Hillary For Prison 2016!
"As already mentioned, read his position papers. Lots of reasons in there."
Are those the positions he has this week or the ones he had the week prior? It's really hard to tell with him sometimes.
Not sure why that ad is effective, it's pretty much Cliffsnotes on how Trump became the nominee.
"He's not Hillary Clinton" may not seem like a great reason to vote for Donald Trump.
Until you actually consider Hillary Clinton.
Why he chose not to, and still does not (though oddly enough he does mention them tangentially as potential Trumpian angles of attack) eludes me.
Why would he rule out legitimate criticisms of Hillary?
He didn't. How the right doesn't see this is eludes me.
No politician has more directly, effectively and consistently called her corruption and cronyism than Bernie Sanders. Bernie used sarcasm that stuck in the minds of people. "Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been very crushed by this." Maybe Republicans don't see it because they don't have credibility as the party of mega donors, etc.
Bernie Sanders created a vocal and active schism in the Democratic party, splitting it in two almost right down the middle with half of the party now wanting nothing to do with Clinton, knowing exactly why, and having a credible alternative candidate and movement to get behind in order to make it stick. Clinton's corruption is her worst liability, but it takes someone a lot less beholden to corporate donors and support than your average Republican and more than half the Democrats to make that charge effectively. Bernie has credibility. He hasn't taken a cent and has three decades of a record voting consistently and not according to the dictates of people who would put him on the take and buy him out. Even Barney Frank can't do this.
If you guys want to become the party of financial integrity when it comes to corporate support, be my guess. But I don't see that happening. In the meantime, as long as the progressives and the part of the Democrats they take over and control are the ones who openly don't give a fig for corporate support, they'll be the ones who have to do the heavy lifting and make that happen. So the first signs of progress are there. We will now aim our guns on the DNC and the zombie lackeys supported by them until the party becomes the one that can rightly claim that its interests aren't mired in the kind of shit that the Clintons' are mired in. We have created a sieve and now know who's on the right side and who needs to go. The Clintons have their tentacles everywhere so that will be a lot to take out, but the target's been perfected.
Again, you're welcome to participate in this too but it first takes credibility in taking on corporate interests. And the way to do it should go beyond just being a billionaire too rich to claim any need of it.
Blogger Christopher said...
"As already mentioned, read his position papers. Lots of reasons in there."
Are those the positions he has this week or the ones he had the week prior? It's really hard to tell with him sometimes.
I don't know, as I said, it's not why I'm voting for him. But now that you've seen those positions, you no longer have to state, in ignorance, "When your sole argument for why those skeptical of Trump should vote for him is "He might not be as bad as Hillary" you aren't persuading anybody."
People are voting for him for many reasons.
It's a good ad. The tone is light and makes Trump out to be a buffoon which is the way to go.
I mean, if you don't know by now that Trump is a loose cannon at the podium … you're really too stupid to be voting.
Love that reasoned analysis.
On the anti-Trump ad: Trump seems to be immune. Many millions have been spent(a lot of it by the has-been GOP figures featured in the ad) on negative ads in every primary that Trump has won but Trump just keeps growing in popularity. Remember when Trump’s “ceiling” was 20%?
I dunno, here in Pennsylvania where every other commercial was from Democrats or Trump himself for weeks, I have still yet to see a single negative ad against Trump on TV.
Holy CRAP, R&B, did you seriously just cite Barney Frank as the Democrat standard setter for non-corruption?!?
I... I can't even.
R & B after reading your comment I think I'm going to contribute to Sanders. And triple the amount if Clinton gets the nomination and he goes third party. He's a Communist and has no chance of winning but if he keeps Hillary from winning he will deserve my financial support for his patriotism. Trump is a Silvio Berlusconi but without the bimbos and the obvious criminality but he will be pretty much ineffectual and harmless. And at age 70 he isn't going to be a two term guy. Hillary on the other hand is dangerous and for all of her corruption is an ideologue and at her age she knows she a lot to do and a short time to do it. I'll vote for the Arnold Schwarzenegger wannabe and hope for a Republican Congress that will moderate any wild hair impulses he may have. If Hillary wins and the Democrats regain Congress they will give her everything because that's how they roll. Let's help Bern derail Hillary for the good of the country.
I dubbed him Dillinger, as one of those who opposed regulation on gse's, scoffed at the failure to capitalize said instruments, of course his gosplan, failed to prevent mf global,
as it will any future malefactor,
He didn't. How the right doesn't see this is eludes me
Because the press is all in for Hillary and simply refuses to cover Sanders.
Speaking of famous dice roller and financial crisis denialist Barney Frank, it was sort of amazing how the rape of Fanny and Freddie did not even get a mention in the movie "The Big Short."
I guess that part of the story was too inconvenient to the "narrative" that the whole thing was due to lack of regulation when the guy charged with oversight of them in Congress was lovers with Herb Moses:
Frank’s longtime lover Herb Moses worked as a top official responsible for relaxing mortgage standards at Fannie Mae, an enterprise that was subject to oversight authority by the House Financial Services Committee upon which Frank served.
Talk about risky:
The infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily – and repeatedly – breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013. "For me, it was easy ... easy for me, for everybody," Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker "Guccifer," told Fox News from a Virginia jail where he is being held. (Snip) The 44-year-old Lazar said he first compromised Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal´s AOL account, in March 2013, and used that as a stepping stone to the Clinton server.
But don't worry, it's only on Fox News. It will not be reported in the Mainstream Media outlets, so it can't be true. You know, the same MSM outlets that won't give Sanders any coverage either. You see, they are only concerned with the Truth! And the Truth! is that Hillary needs to be president!
Data security is a big thing, if you haven't noticed. If any organization serious about security ever discovered a server in a bathroom, presumably not under video surveillance, where people could go unescorted, OK, I am assuming that anybody using the bathroom was unescorted, maybe I am wrong, not subject to periodic penetration testing by a third party, not behind firewalls with serious security capabilities, where the logs were reviewed daily, and all incidents reported and addressed, people would be forthwith and an investigation undertaken to understand how it had happened.
If Guccifer didn't hack the server, that should be easy to prove with the logs from that equipment, right? Just like Bill Clinton could easily have showed with his travel and security records as governor, after all, his security was paid, that he was nowhere near that hotel room where Juanita Broaddrick, with five contemporaneous witnesses, claimed to have been raped.
If you follow the news Sanders is the guy who keeps mysteriously winning primaries even though he never says anything interesting enough to report.
Christopher said...
"When your sole argument for why those skeptical of Trump should vote for him is "He might not be as bad as Hillary" you aren't persuading anybody."
Oh, I don't know about this Chris, 'The lesser of two evils' is a pretty popular phrase and I tend to follow that line of thinking myself. Do you generally choose the greater of two evils?
People are voting for him for many reasons.
Exactly.
Shiloh mentioned yesterday that this election spells the end of the T.E.A. Party. My answer was, " Who do you think is voting for Trump?"
It isn't so much of what Trump says as what the establishment republicans have failed to do.
The last elections which placed both the house and the senate with republican majorities has failed to live up to the campaign promises made. Secure our boarders and repeal Obamacare. Hence Trump. He is far from perfect but he doesn't owe the establishment politicians anything. Maybe he won't be better than Hillary, but at least he isn't Hillary. Hillary. A hugely incompetent establishment politician. And that's the kindest thing anyone can say about her.
How the Hell does anyone figure Hillary -- with her completely disastrous record of failure as SoS -- is a "safe" candidate?
Tim,
That story about Guccifer is on the NBCNews web site. Though they are couching the claim with:
"When pressed by NBC News, Lazar, 44, could provide no documentation to back up his claims, nor did he ever release anything online supporting his allegations, as he had frequently done with past hacks."
Of course, unless she was utterly careless or has destroyed evidence, Hillary could easily disprove that it didn't happen. He did in fact hack Blumenthal.
Prove, D"Oh!
Maybe all the Republicans in the states which haven't had primaries yet should switch their voter registrations and vote for Sanders. #NeverHillary! Too risky!
Holy CRAP, R&B, did you seriously just cite Barney Frank as the Democrat standard setter for non-corruption?!?
No.
I... I can't even.
Even what? Read?
If I singled him out for anything, it was the inertia that somehow selected him and Chris Dodd as the go-to guys for financial regulatory reform. I didn't know anything about them or their records. But after hearing Fwank shill for Hill in that disgustingly grating nasal whine of his pig squeal of a voice, I can tell the guy is a complete sell-out.
Again, I'm not saying that he never was before. I'm just saying that now it's come out in a very obvious way. Almost all the Hillary shills (and let's face it, these primaries aren't leaving lots of room for gray areas) you can tell that they 100% have no understanding of bribery, corruption, integrity, improper influence, none of it. This is a tribal campaign to the max, based around core issues but primarily decency and honesty. Bernie supporters want it in the party. Hillary supporters just want power. And they will lie to no end and smile maniacally on the tv talk shows when called out. This difference even divides us in terms of basic communication styles. It's very loud and clear to us.
Shiloh mentioned yesterday that this election spells the end of the T.E.A. Party. My answer was, " Who do you think is voting for Trump?"
Shiloh doesn't know shit from Shinola.
Typical Hillary supporter.
He's a Communist...
I think you're a communist seeing as how you don't know what one is.
Bernie's positions poll overwhelmingly positively with the public. He beats every Republican in a head-to-head match-up, and at margins greater than and sometimes twice that of Hillary. He does better in the states where independents have been allowed to vote.
The only way Republicans win is by selling out the people to corporate interests, and this is why Trump is their nominee.
But his fortune is the only reason he's trusted on that score. People trust Bernie for having the most convergence of interest, issues and policies with Trump, but moreso in that he was able to stick to that without being bought out or having inherited a fortune to bypass it with wealth and celebrity alone. And he never flip-flopped.
Go vote for the even richer version of Lindsey Lohan, if you want to. Or whichever of the many other celebrities du jour you couldn't help mentioning in your Trump-cheerleading comment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा