Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Libertarian Party debate was on TV yesterdayFollow

#77 Jun 15 2016 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'm not going to respond point by point, but just make some broad observations that think you are mistaken about:

1. There is a distinction between "the GOP", and individuals within said party. Individuals act on principles. The party is just a collection of those people. It does not, itself, hold any principles at all. It also can't act in a unilateral or monolithic manner. Cause, it's made up of a group of individuals. I really think you're not grasping this. You keep lurching back and forth between talking about individuals within the party and what they should do, are doing, or could do, and "the GOP" as though it should magically just do what that small sample of individuals are talking about. It just doesn't work that way though.

2. Politicians often proclaim the worst case scenario when attempting to influence voters. And voters themselves poll differently when in a primary versus general. They do this because if they prefer candidate A over candidate B, they'll insist to everyone within earshot that candidate B would be a disaster, would fail in the general, will cause others to lose their races, etc. All of this is an effort to influence other voters in the primary. It's why you can't take the "if the general election were held today between Republican A and Democrat B" polls seriously until *after* both parties have chosen their actual nominees. Because if you're a Democrat and you want other democrats to vote for Sanders in the primary, and you participate in a poll running Clinton head to head against any member of the GOP, you're going to poll that the GOP candidate will win. Because you want eroded belief in Clinton's chance to win, in the hopes that other Democrats will vote for Sanders instead. The same thing happens on the GOP side. And guess what? The same thing happens with pundits and politicians proclaiming doom and gloom if their chosen candidate isn't elected (or the one they don't like it). Once the primary selection process ends, that tends to change dramatically.

3. Trump's issue with many on the Right isn't that he's too conservative, but that he's not conservative enough. This is what you *really* don't seem to get. More to the point, is that he's not really aligned politically in what we'd traditionally label as "right vs left". As such, attempts to apply normal election map rules aren't going to work. I've mentioned this a couple times, but you've failed to acknowledge it. Trump will certainly alienate some groups, but many of those groups already have low support for GOP candidates. You speak of "sacrificing principles", but the alternative path forward for those in the GOP would be to change their position on certain issues (like say immigration) to be more like the Left's. Um... That would be doing exactly what you claim. Standing firm on an issue that can be argued on a purely ideological and legal standpoint is far far better that what many GOP politicians have done in the past (standing firm on the more strawmanish religious right issues). That's the one that gets used as a boogieman by the left every election cycle. And that's one that is more or less eliminated in this race.



You talked about redrawing the election map, and needing to be competitive in traditional swing states. And you're correct. But I think you aren't getting that Trump has a ridiculous appeal among working and middle class blue collar workers. Folks who aren't happy with government regulations that have priced their labor out of the market, and have caused their employers to move elsewhere. Rightly or wrongly, they see Clinton as more of the same, and Trump as someone who at least appears to have something else to offer (I'm not even sure what that is, but then most of the voting public is dumb as a brick, so it's not really about having good policies, but rather making large numbers of people think you do). For every vote he may lose among the traditional identity/minority aligned voters, it's entirely possible he picks up 2 or 3 votes among that group. People who care more about their jobs, and being able to put food on their own table with their own two hands, and send their kids to college, and maybe even retire with something greater than the government subsidy that is social security. These are the people that Trump appeals to.


And yeah, I get that the left's response is to double down on the traditional identity based rhetoric. And that may just work. But it might just fail spectacularly. Again, that's rhetoric that they use every single election cycle anyway. So they get that, maybe a bit more of that. But they lose on a few other areas that I don't think they're thinking about that clearly. Trump is not your stereotypical conservative Republican. Not remotely. Treating him as one, who's just more vocal about certain things than others (and thus more likely to alienate), is a huge mistake IMO. I also would not be terribly concerned about a third party run from the right. Folks will talk about, and threaten it, but that's still a bargaining tactic. It's far more likely that Sanders chooses to run third party than anyone on the right. And I don't think either is very likely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Jun 15 2016 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
1. There is a distinction between "the GOP", and individuals within said party. Individuals act on principles. The party is just a collection of those people. It does not, itself, hold any principles at all. It also can't act in a unilateral or monolithic manner. Cause, it's made up of a group of individuals. I really think you're not grasping this. You keep lurching back and forth between talking about individuals within the party and what they should do, are doing, or could do, and "the GOP" as though it should magically just do what that small sample of individuals are talking about. It just doesn't work that way though.
I differentiate the groups because I realize that they are different. I'm not sure why you keep saying that I'm conflating them. What do you think was discussed with Sen. Sanders and the President, VP Biden and Sen. Reed?

Gbaji wrote:
2. Politicians often proclaim the worst case scenario when attempting to influence voters. And voters themselves poll differently when in a primary versus general. They do this because if they prefer candidate A over candidate B, they'll insist to everyone within earshot that candidate B would be a disaster, would fail in the general, will cause others to lose their races, etc. All of this is an effort to influence other voters in the primary. It's why you can't take the "if the general election were held today between Republican A and Democrat B" polls seriously until *after* both parties have chosen their actual nominees. Because if you're a Democrat and you want other democrats to vote for Sanders in the primary, and you participate in a poll running Clinton head to head against any member of the GOP, you're going to poll that the GOP candidate will win. Because you want eroded belief in Clinton's chance to win, in the hopes that other Democrats will vote for Sanders instead. The same thing happens on the GOP side. And guess what? The same thing happens with pundits and politicians proclaiming doom and gloom if their chosen candidate isn't elected (or the one they don't like it). Once the primary selection process ends, that tends to change dramatically.


Gbaji wrote:
3. Trump's issue with many on the Right isn't that he's too conservative, but that he's not conservative enough. This is what you *really* don't seem to get. More to the point, is that he's not really aligned politically in what we'd traditionally label as "right vs left". As such, attempts to apply normal election map rules aren't going to work. I've mentioned this a couple times, but you've failed to acknowledge it. Trump will certainly alienate some groups, but many of those groups already have low support for GOP candidates. You speak of "sacrificing principles", but the alternative path forward for those in the GOP would be to change their position on certain issues (like say immigration) to be more like the Left's. Um... That would be doing exactly what you claim. Standing firm on an issue that can be argued on a purely ideological and legal standpoint is far far better that what many GOP politicians have done in the past (standing firm on the more strawmanish religious right issues). That's the one that gets used as a boogieman by the left every election cycle. And that's one that is more or less eliminated in this race.

Why would the GOP be against their nominee for being too conservative? I never implied that was true. So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that the GOP candidates were running more so on principle?

Gbaji wrote:
You talked about redrawing the election map, and needing to be competitive in traditional swing states. And you're correct. But I think you aren't getting that Trump has a ridiculous appeal among working and middle class blue collar workers. Folks who aren't happy with government regulations that have priced their labor out of the market, and have caused their employers to move elsewhere. Rightly or wrongly, they see Clinton as more of the same, and Trump as someone who at least appears to have something else to offer (I'm not even sure what that is, but then most of the voting public is dumb as a brick, so it's not really about having good policies, but rather making large numbers of people think you do). For every vote he may lose among the traditional identity/minority aligned voters, it's entirely possible he picks up 2 or 3 votes among that group. People who care more about their jobs, and being able to put food on their own table with their own two hands, and send their kids to college, and maybe even retire with something greater than the government subsidy that is social security. These are the people that Trump appeals to.


And yeah, I get that the left's response is to double down on the traditional identity based rhetoric. And that may just work. But it might just fail spectacularly. Again, that's rhetoric that they use every single election cycle anyway. So they get that, maybe a bit more of that. But they lose on a few other areas that I don't think they're thinking about that clearly. Trump is not your stereotypical conservative Republican. Not remotely. Treating him as one, who's just more vocal about certain things than others (and thus more likely to alienate), is a huge mistake IMO. I also would not be terribly concerned about a third party run from the right. Folks will talk about, and threaten it, but that's still a bargaining tactic. It's far more likely that Sanders chooses to run third party than anyone on the right. And I don't think either is very likely.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-26/bloomberg-politics-rust-belt-poll wrote:
Donald Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 7 percentage points among middle-income voters in the Rust Belt, a key demographic he almost certainly needs to become president.
#79 Jun 15 2016 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump is also down by 7 in Wisconsin which is probably the best chance for a Midwestern "blue state" pickup (it went for the Democrat by 0.5% in 2000 and 2004). If he's losing Wisconsin, he sure isn't picking up Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Jun 15 2016 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I differentiate the groups because I realize that they are different. I'm not sure why you keep saying that I'm conflating them.


Because you keep speaking of what "the GOP" should have done, and then use examples of individual statements or actions as your rationale. You then go in the opposite direction by saying that individual candidates should have taken action X, Y, or Z because it would have been better for "the GOP". You then complained that by not doing so they were picking "winning" over "principles". I honestly am not sure what the heck your point is, since you seem to keep meandering from one aspect of the political process to another with little to no coherent thought behind any of it.

Quote:
What do you think was discussed with Sen. Sanders and the President, VP Biden and Sen. Reed?


I have no clue. I do know that of all of the potential democratic party candidates that any of us would have labeled as serious contenders in the 2016 primary, the only one to put her hat in the ring was Clinton. Now, maybe the others all just individually decided not to run, but it seems far more likely that there were some backroom conversations between the DNC and the "serious candidates" suggesting that they give Clinton her shot unimpeded. This is certainly just speculation, but it does match the facts of what we saw.

The larger point is that if we assume that the DNC did take any action, the sort of which you claim the RNC (or "the GOP") should have taken as well, then said action would have had to have taken place early in 2015. This is because, if we do assume that the DNC did arrange for Clinton to run unopposed by any of the other first stringers in the party, that conversation would have had to have taken place back then, because it was back then when Warren decided not to run. So for the GOP to do the same thing the Democrats did, that's when they would have needed to do it.

I didn't think that was such a hard concept to understand. You started out talking about what the GOP should have done after the SC primary to change things. And you argued that they could have done the same thing that the Democrats did. But what they did (assuming that they did do it) was done about a year earlier). So... totally not possible without a time machine. Get it?

Quote:
Why would the GOP be against their nominee for being too conservative?


I don't know. I didn't say that. What part of me very clearly saying that the problem most conservatives have with Trump is that he's not conservative enough did you not get?

Quote:
I never implied that was true.


And I didn't say that either. What I said is that you don't seem to understand that the opposition within the party isn't because Trump is too conservative, but because he's not conservative enough (well, for some brands of conservative anyway).

Why is this relevant? Because your argument was based on GOP fears about Trump's performance and position affecting other races that the GOP cares about. But that argument itself rests on the idea that voters will see Trump as "too extreme" (specifically "too conservative") and run away. Hence my comment. Now if you meant to say that Trump will be a problem for other GOP candidates because he's too moderate on social issues, and too moderate on gay marriage, and too moderate on government social spending, and too moderate on a host of other things that the GOP often gets based on taking a hard stance on, then you might have a point. But you've not been clear at all with your support for your position, so sadly, I'm left to kinda speculate.


Quote:
So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that the GOP candidates were running more so on principle?


Huh!? What the heck does that have to do with what we were just talking about? When I say your thought process meanders, this is what I'm talking about. This literally has nothing at all to do with a conversation about how Trumps nomination might affect the voter's choices for other GOP candidates in other races. Stay on target.

Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-26/bloomberg-politics-rust-belt-poll wrote:
Donald Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 7 percentage points among middle-income voters in the Rust Belt, a key demographic he almost certainly needs to become president.


Uh huh. You get that this polling data is weighted based on voting trends from the 2012 election, right? Let me point out (again) that most of these sources are operating on the assumption that Trump is viewed as a standard GOP presidential candidate, and will gain/lose voters based on the standard policy issues that normally divide voters between the GOP/DEM parties. And if that turns out to be the case, they'll be accurate. But if Trump is re-writing the election map, then they have no value at all. You can't argue that he's not going to do this by using data analysis that assumes he's not going to do this.

If, as I have suspected for most of this primary season, Trump's support is coming from segments of voters who don't normally participate, or who align themselves in ways not normally associated with the GOP/DEM dynamic, the numbers we normally use aren't going to be accurate. It takes time for pollsters to accumulate pools of respondents and accurately weight them in useful ways. I'm not sure if a poll consisting of 803 people can be considered particular accurate in this case. When using a relatively low number of people, the pollsters have to use weighting calculations to make the results more accurate for what is actually a much much larger voting population. And to do that, they use past trends. Which normally works quite well. I'm just not sure how well it works in this case.

Obviously, this is more of a wait and see thing. I suspect that the polling numbers will shift back and forth quite a bit between now and election day. I also think that a lot of what's driving the polls is the broad dissatisfaction with our government in general, and yes, the personal dislike many people have for both major party nominees. The interesting point here is that sometime before November, these people have to shift from polling how they think and feel to actually voting (most of them for one of those two candidates). That's a mental process that's not so easy to predict. I suspect that, as that selection day comes nearer, people will have to choose whether they personally dislike Trump so much more than they personally dislike Clinton, that it outweighs other factors they dislike about the status quo in Washington. Ultimately, personality aside, and specific policy positions aside, this will be a contest between "keep things the way they have been" and "change things". And ironically, it's the GOP candidate on the "change things" side. Which is why it's far more of a mash up than I think you're realizing.


It will, at the very least, be "interesting".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Jun 15 2016 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. You get that this polling data is weighted based on voting trends from the 2012 election, right?
Remember when you spent all of 2012 discounting polling data because "It's weighed based on the 2008 election"? Then Romney got crushed? Good times, good times...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Jun 15 2016 at 9:37 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Because you keep speaking of what "the GOP" should have done,

Almalieque on post 69 wrote:
The GOP, conservatives and Republicans should have done what the DNC, Democrats and liberals have done.


Gbaji wrote:
I have no clue
How can you provide theories on why there were no serious candidates outside of Sec. Clinton, but then be clueless on what the conversations were possibly about among Sen. Sanders and key DNC leaders? Quit dodging the question and it'll be obvious on how conservatives, Republicans and the GOP could have done the same tactic, before, during or after South Carolina.

Gbaji wrote:
What I said is that you don't seem to understand that the opposition within the party isn't because Trump is too conservative, but because he's not conservative enough (well, for some brands of conservative anyway).
Which implies that I believe the GOP is against Trump because he's too conservative. The GOP isn't against Trump because he's too liberal or conservative, it's because he has no baseline. He's a wild card that can't be predicted.

Gbaji wrote:
. But that argument itself rests on the idea that voters will see Trump as "too extreme" (specifically "too conservative") and run away.
Where did I imply that Trump would specifically be too conservative?

Gbaji on post 57 wrote:
I said that Republicans were more likely to act on their principles
So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that the GOP candidates were running more so on principle?

Gbaji wrote:
You get that this polling data is weighted based on voting trends from the 2012 election, right?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html wrote:
Wisconsin: Clinton +9
#83 Jun 16 2016 at 1:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
5% needed for the next election for matching funds IIRC.

15% of a selection of five general election polls right now (even though of course most don't even include third-party candidates) to be deigned to be able to debate in general election debates (and since Johnson is polling 10+ in polls that bother, so close, expect that to go to 25% next Women League of Voters or whatever ****** **** decides such things).

I will never vote for Trump or Clinton in this election, so little ridiculous things like this matter to third-party voting maniacs like me. I favor Stein by far but might vote Johnson instead if it looks like he might carry 5% pop vote. I live in California btw, voting for Trump or Clinton is not going to mean anything. Literally no other way my vote could possibly mean anything unless I vote third-party, due to 5% pop.

And for that same reason, anyone of you ever caring about third-party representation should lie when polled even if you'll vote for/favor Clinton or Trump, just to get Johnson up to 15% poll so someone other than the two warhawking, corporatist candidates could debate. And again I favor Stein, but Johnson is much more likely to reach that thus I'll lie if polled.

And obviously libertarians in general are amoral disgusting naive privileged evil regressively-utopian/dystopian Ayn Rand college-educated monied idiotic shitbags. But there's still a need for a strong third party.
#84 Jun 16 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kinda handy to have other solid candidates in the running when/if that happens.
Like Trump and Cruz.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Jun 16 2016 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. You get that this polling data is weighted based on voting trends from the 2012 election, right?
Remember when you spent all of 2012 discounting polling data because "It's weighed based on the 2008 election"? Then Romney got crushed? Good times, good times...
To be fair Fox News did a great job of convincing subset of the population that the polls were all wrong for various reasons. Really was top-notch propaganda. Until it all fell apart of course...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Jun 16 2016 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Oversampling was too easy to disprove, so this cycle we got "secret agent liberals changed their licenses to vote for Trump to sabotage the Holy Church of the Conservative Kind of Right But Not As Far Right As Cruz."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Jun 16 2016 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
That one is hard to disprove, they are secret after all. Personally am looking forward to "Busloads of Black People" the sequel.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#88 Jun 16 2016 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, this season it's "Trump's a wild card! No one can plan what he's doing! He's changed everything so nothing is safe!"

That doesn't seem to be the case so far in the head-to-head dynamic of the general versus the fractured GOP primary. Trump's been consistently behind, his favorability is making Clinton's look good in comparison (70% unfavorable, 85% with Hispanics), his usual antics aren't working and his campaign is a skeletal hot mess with Trump trying to co-opt the RNC funding arm because his campaign doesn't actually have one.

Obviously you can keep saying "But he's a maniac! No one knows what he'll do next to change the whole paradigm!" up until election day but that's a thin hope to hang on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Jun 16 2016 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Trump's ... favorability is making Clinton's look good in comparison

Let's take a moment to truly appreciate the magnitude of this particular dishonor.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#90 Jun 17 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
I ran across the weirdest thing on Youtube last night and felt like I ought to share.
#91 Jun 17 2016 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Gary Johnson is polling at 12% nationally. Still needs to hit 15% in 5 major polls to be invited to the general election debates, but he's doing a CCN Town Hall in primetime next week. Might be the exposure he needs to push him over the threshold.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#92 Jun 19 2016 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The feed on Political Wire today was pretty impressive in how screwed the GOP is right now:
Quote:
“With a group of Republican delegates working to stop Donald Trump at next month’s convention, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) has given no indication that he plans to stop them,” the Washington Post reports.

Said Ryan: “It’s not my job to tell delegates what to do… They write the rules. They make their decisions.”
Quote:
“Not only are Trump’s poll numbers slipping, they are at a low that no one, Republican or Democrat, has seen in the past three election cycles.
[...]
“There’s every reason to think that those numbers will get worse. Trump essentially has no campaign at this point; there’s no sign that he has started staffing up significantly.”
Quote:
According to Quantcast, Donald Trump’s website received roughly 600K visits in May. His biggest month over the last year was April at nearly 800K visits.

In contrast, Quantcast shows Hillary Clinton’s website received nearly 3 million visits in May. Her biggest month over the last year was March at about 3.7 million.
Quote:
“Concerned with polls showing Hillary Clinton has a chance to win in one of the most conservative states in the nation, Utah Republican Party Chairman James Evans huddled with Donald Trump in Las Vegas on Saturday,” the Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Quote:
“Every single 2016 presidential TV ad currently airing in a battleground state is either from Hillary Clinton’s campaign or the Democratic outside groups supporting her,” NBC News reports.

“The opposition, by contrast, hasn’t spent a dime in these same battlegrounds – whether it’s Donald Trump’s campaign or Republican-leaning Super PACs.”
Quote:
“Hillary Clinton’s super PAC has begun spending $145 million on ads in eight states through November — and there’s a realistic path for her to win the White House even if she carries only one of them,” Politico reports.

And then there's this...
Quote:
Justice Clarence Thomas, “a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election,” the Washington Examiner reports.

“Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died.”

Clinton, with a Democratic Senate, could conceivably appoint replacements to Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy (80) and Ginsburg (83) in her first term with young Justices.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Jun 19 2016 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
So... what are the odds Republicans might somehow be able to call a do over on their primaries and pick someone else somehow?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#94 Jun 20 2016 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There is, supposedly, a growing movement among delegates to re-write the convention rules so they can vote for whoever they want from the first ballot. "Growing movement" in this case is a few hundred out of the 2,380 so who knows if it'll get anywhere but Ryan's thrown his hands up over it. Donors are very concerned about Trump's lack of a campaign infrastructure; he has 30 staffers nationwide compared to 700+ for Clinton and, as noted, has yet to run any ads while Clinton is pumping them out. Trump is failing at his most basic and essential task as a candidate right now: Convincing his own team that he can win this.

That said, I assume he'll still be the nominee. And kicking him out will be just as disastrous (if not more) for the GOP's chances in November as running with him on the ballot.

Edit: And.... Trump fires his campaign manager.
NYT wrote:
Donald J. Trump is parting ways with his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, a move that comes as the presumptive Republican nominee faces challenges as it moves toward the general election.

“The Donald J. Trump Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign,” the campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in a statement. “The campaign is grateful to Corey for his hard work and dedication and we wish him the best in the future.”


Edited, Jun 20th 2016 8:55am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Jun 20 2016 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Just for the sake of argument, Trump really doesn't need the kind of campaign infrastructure Clinton does to get his face and message across. All he has to do is go in front of any camera and say something and every network will spend ten minutes talking about it, and then there's his social media presence which has countless people constantly talking about him and amounting to free viral advertisements. I mean, sure not having the traditional and essential infrastructure is going to hurt him, but I don't think it's going to be a Category 9 disaster.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Jun 20 2016 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was just reading something (that I'm too lazy to go find again) that said one of the big problems with his skeleton staff is that they just can't keep up. Trump had some list of veterans who supported him to use when the "Trump never actually donated to vet groups" story broke but it never got released because they were still trying to clean it up. Trump does some feel-good appearances like speaking at a factory and they actually don't make the news because no one is putting together the press kits. His fund-raising apparatus is nonexistent and he already said he wouldn't be self funding his general election campaign. The staff is completely swamped even by "presidential campaign staff" standards and is dropping the ball all over the place. Plus few of them are campaign veterans but rather just various loyalists plucked from other places -- his press secretary, Hope Hicks, had never worked in politics but rather did some modeling and PR work for Ivanka.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Jun 20 2016 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Okay, saying he didn't need it was the wrong word. He does need it, but he is proof that we're moving away from traditional press kits and massive staffs. We're still a few steps away from everything is immediately covered by Twitter, but I still contend the traditional methods are on their way out.
Jophiel wrote:
Clinton, with a Democratic Senate, could conceivably appoint replacements to Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy (80) and Ginsburg (83) in her first term with young Justices.
I was tired enough when I read that to think it could be Conner Kent, Cassie Sandsmark and Dick Greyson.

Guess it's kind of funny that soon after Scalia leaves Thomas follows.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 Jun 20 2016 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Okay, saying he didn't need it was the wrong word. He does need it, but he is proof that we're moving away from traditional press kits and massive staffs. We're still a few steps away from everything is immediately covered by Twitter, but I still contend the traditional methods are on their way out

Save your argument for when it's not Clinton +7 Smiley: wink2
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Jun 20 2016 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Oh yeah, sure, just because the polls have been pretty much on the mark the last two decades I'm going to take them serious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Jun 20 2016 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And kicking him out will be just as disastrous (if not more) for the GOP's chances in November as running with him on the ballot.


I just realized that. Welp. Congraturation Hilary and whoever Hilary's VP is. This has certainly been a short and uninteresting election year. Going back to bed now.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#101 Jun 20 2016 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Another note about staffing: The GOP convention is in a month and the just-fired Lewandowski was supposed to be heading its set-up. Supposedly the scheduling is in shambles and not coming together at all. There's a big funding gap with a bunch of major companies who normally act as sponsors (Ford, Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Chase, etc) who are pulling out or just giving token amounts. Trump's big plan is to forgo the usual political speakers: governors, senators, rising party luminaries (mainly because few want to be seen with him) and instead stock the convention with "winners": sports stars and other celebrity figures. Except it's still unknown how many of those want to attach themselves to the Trump brand either and you can't really set up all those people's schedules with three weeks notice.

Trump also plans to speak every night of the convention which he might have to, if only to fill times.

Edited, Jun 20th 2016 6:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 379 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (379)