Tweet
Originally posted by Wooglin
View Post
-
Yep, that would do it. -
To make the point - from a political agnosticism point of view.Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
1). Most commentators did not believe he'd get anywhere near that amount of support. Infact they've repeatedly got it wrong. If they've repeatedly got it wrong then the prism through which they have commentated has been outside their realm of expertise.
2). If there is a large turn out you're banking on the "Trump is so awful I have to prevent a nuclear war" crowd to come out and cast a blocking vote. Well, you've got a Flower front row in the 1st debate to remind the Bernie or Bust Crowd feminists to Stay at home, and to remind college educated female of the choice. Seems to me it'll be a tough gig to get the people out to vote.
3). People do not respond well to negative advertising - it turns them off. Negative advertising helps the other side.Ego NumquamComment
-
chunder,
by the way, for all the noise about this, looks like this will not be happening. looks like the Trump campaign realized belatedly how truly ass-clownish it made them look.2) Well, you've got a Flower front row in the 1st debate to remind the Bernie or Bust Crowd feminists to Stay at home, and to remind college educated female of the choice. Seems to me it'll be a tough gig to get the people out to vote.
in any case there's a lot, lot, lot more reasons than just that, which will bring out the vote.
not quite. i don't like this either, but fear happens to be one of the more potent ways to bring out the crowd. in fact, Donald's made that the basis of his entire campaign, IE America is in utter chaos and "places like Afghanistan are safer than America's inner cities", etc etc.3). People do not respond well to negative advertising - it turns them off. Negative advertising helps the other side.
and, it was one of the reasons why LBJ crushed Goldwater ("extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice") so decisively in 1964.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3kThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac AsimovComment
-
tl;dr Hillary, you're only going to be elected because there's an even more vile species of sewer dweller than you.Originally posted by Wooglin View Post“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”Comment
-
-
It is nice to see more people, not just here but everywhere, are finally seeing just how despicable the two main choices are. Now the big question is what people are going to do about it. Sadly my guess is the same old, "hold your nose vote" and bitch about it but not really doing anything to change the fact that "we the people" are geting railroaded by special interests and partisan politics. The trenches where each side fawns over their savior, er, candidate are diminishing as a growing number of voters are no longer voting FOR a candidate as they are voting AGAINST another. For 20 years I have been wanting people to be brave enough to take the red pill but they are so completely adicted to the blue pill.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.Comment
-
is it this hard to understand that the US electoral system of first-past-the-post, the electoral college system, and gerrymandering makes it all but impossible for a viable third party?
how many people voted for Ross Perot, and how many electoral votes did Perot win?There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac AsimovComment
-
The Debate Question to Doom The Trumpet
Question: Mr Trump, we have a 40-year tradition of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns for public scrutiny. Such information provides confidence that voters will fully understand for whom they vote. Secretary Clinton has released hers, but you have not. When will you do so?
Mr Trump: I’m so rich you little people wouldn’t understand.
Question: You didn’t answer the question.
Mr Trump: I’m under audit.
Question: That is widely understood to have no bearing on releasing your tax returns. Please answer the question.
Mr Trump: Hillary Clinton is corrupt!
Question: The question wasn’t about Secretary Clinton’s honesty; it was about your own.
[continue ad nauseam]Trust me?
I'm an economist!Comment
-
My only view of this is that I can't actually understand why you'd want to actually put someone through that. Anyway.Originally posted by astralis View Post
Directly bad mouthing the other side in tight elections is bad. I didn't base it on gut view. I can't source it right now - but in the aftermath of our recent election a good study came out that verbatim said don't place negative emphasis on the opposition. It doesn't help center voters in particular. There's a huge difference between "America is in chaos" and "Trump is an unhinged orange buffoon". You might agree, some might disagree, that's not the point - the point is that immigration control does matter to those existing in the center and attacking the messenger of an issue is viewed as a negative. I'm sure there are others I'm not in the U.S.A so it's not my forte.not quite. i don't like this either, but fear happens to be one of the more potent ways to bring out the crowd. in fact, Donald's made that the basis of his entire campaign, IE America is in utter chaos and "places like Afghanistan are safer than America's inner cities", etc etc.
There is reams of commentary in this forum alone about a Hillary landslide, with any amount of reasoning. Without abusing Trump supporters, one needs to explain why his support is increasing. In the age of limitless media, anyone can log onto RCP and easily tally the pro Clinton v Pro Trump articles In oz it's ALL Clinton. In such articles it is hard to find objective analysis. I do expect him to loose, even his supporters expect to, but he's miles and miles ahead of where anyone expected him to be. Infact more so when you factor in the Primaries. Only Joe Klien in TIME expected him to do well. Too many people were wrong & now we're actually debating if he really is drawn, or if he has actually hit his support ceiling. Heck over at RCP it seems to be that the Debates don't seem to effect overall Trend. It seems as though people will be watching the first one because of all the Hype. If Trump doesn't do too bad at that - then even Clintons advisers consider that a loss.and, it was one of the reasons why LBJ crushed Goldwater ("extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice") so decisively in 1964.
cheers.Ego NumquamComment
-
chunder,
i don't disagree. i had that entire discussion with julie and z about Donald's penchant for personal insults and attacks on family, and that's contributed to his low ceiling of support.Directly bad mouthing the other side in tight elections is bad. I didn't base it on gut view.
but, fear itself as a campaign tactic does work in certain situations.
increasing as compared to what, when he was completely wiped out a month ago due to insulting a Gold Star family?Without abusing Trump supporters, one needs to explain why his support is increasing.
his rating now is only slightly above his average, and that's something that's held since he came into prominence in October 2015.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html
his support dipped during the heat of the GOP primary, and now as the general election draws closer to its end, there's a small rally around the partisan flag effect...which is still not enough to get him to his formerly achieved ceiling.
you're talking about a polity where even a 3% difference, roughly where the candidates are now, will mean an EV landslide.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac AsimovComment
-
Choices in prior elections have never been anywhere near as bad as people make them seem.Originally posted by bonehead View Post
I know you'll disagree, but even Hillary isn't that bad policy-wise (for the median American voter). Hillary is highly intelligent, cunning, knows her policy details (even if she has a left-wing slant on them), is relatively moderate on most issues, and is both cut-throat and willing to make deals at the same time. She, however, is of rather poor character, and is EXTREMELY uncharismatic.
Trump really is as bad as what us peons think of the major party candidates, in practically every respect. Hopefully this is not the direction of the Republic, but it may be.
If so, we can always petition House Windsor to appoint a few Royal Governors."The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von BismarckComment
-
When ‘deplorables’ took back their country
Will Donald Trump lead a second Jacksonian Revolution?
By Thomas C. Stewart
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The 1829 inauguration of Andrew Jackson ranks as the most raucous in American history. Presidents in those days traditionally held open house for the general public after being sworn in, but no one anticipated that hordes of Jackson’s rough-and-tumble supporters would descend on the nation’s capital for the big day or that they would troupe over to the White House following his inaugural address to shake his hand and guzzle free booze.
The party soon spun out of control. China and glassware were smashed, punch bowls and liquor spilled, and mud tracked over fine carpets as men in dirty boots stood on chairs to get a better look at the new president. Washington’s more sedate residents surveyed the chaos and shuddered. They no doubt saw his supporters as “a basket of deplorables,” but historians today view this event as symbolizing a seismic shift in American politics: the Jacksonian Revolution.
The Jacksonian Revolution was a reaction to much the same kind of elitism and condescension that Hillary Clinton displayed when she told a select group of her snotty, well-heeled contributors in Manhattan that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “deplorables” and the other half, in effect, a bunch of losers who aren’t smart enough to vote for her.
Some things never seem to change. Until Jackson ran for president, our politics were reserved for the well-heeled elite. Four of our first six presidents were aristocratic Virginia plantation owners, while the other two were father and son and scions of an old New England family.
Jackson set out to crash this cozy gentlemen’s club. A man of humble origins he became our first “frontier” president; the first from the West rather than a member of the East Coast establishment.
He first ran in 1824. There were four candidates that year: Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, and Jackson himself, then a Tennessee senator.
Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, but he not a majority of either. So it fell to the House of Representatives to choose the president from among the three top vote-getters — Jackson, Adams and Crawford. Clay, who came in fourth, could not be considered for the presidency but threw his considerable influence behind Adams, who won and later made him his secretary of State.
Jackson was furious at this “corrupt bargain.” To him, it seemed that an unscrupulous political elite had stolen the election. The people agreed. Notwithstanding the fact that Jackson was by then a wealthy cotton grower, they saw him as the champion of the common man and elected him four years later by a landslide.
Jackson arrived in Washington determined to make the national government a true government of the people.
There was no civil service in those days. All federal offices were by appointment. Jackson felt that if appointees remained in office too long, it bred elitism and corruption. “I cannot but believe,” he said in his first message to Congress, “that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience.” He was right. When he took office, he found evidence of widespread misuse of funds.
Jackson held that “Offices were not established to give support to particular men at the public expense.” Accordingly, regular turnover of federal office holders not only limited opportunities for corruption, but democratized the government by giving more citizens the opportunity to serve.
Jackson then turned his attention to the Second Bank of the United States. The name of the bank is misleading. While it did serve as the depository for federal funds, it was a private, for-profit corporation with 80 percent of its stock in the hands of wealthy American and foreign investors.
The new president believed that it was wrong for private individuals to profit from lending public money. Add to that the fact that the bank could influence the government by making loans to politicians and doing them favors, an early example of “crony capitalism.” “The rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes,” Jackson warned in a message to Congress vetoing a bill to recharter the bank.
Jackson’s policies were controversial at the time, and are still vigorously debated by historians, but Jackson rocked the political establishment and made government more accountable to the people.
Could we have a second Jacksonian Revolution? That depends on whether the American people trust Donald Trump to lead one.
We know that like Andrew Jackson, Mr. Trump can be brusque, strong-willed and single-minded. But isn’t that just the kind of man it takes to really shake things up in Washington? If it takes a little spilled liquor, smashed china and muddy carpets to put the people back in charge, I say bring them on.
• Thomas C. Stewart is a retired New York investment banker and a former U.S. Naval Attack Commander.
(FYI: I find the quoted opinion interesting, but do not support Donald J. Trump's candidacy for the office of POTUS.)Last edited by JRT; 26 Sep 16,, 19:48..
.
.Comment
-
What is a U.S. Naval "Attack" Commander? Never heard of that particular title...Comment
-
A brown shoe responsible for a single plane. I'm sure desertswo would have had something to say. Actually I know exactly what he would have said.Comment
Comment