I apologize for the delay in responding, it is difficult to reply in a timely manner while I’m at work.
So you won’t answer my question, ok. You are fixating on poles because you have found a graph on the Huffington Post site that you think proves me wrong, that’s ok too. You are still not addressing the actual point I was making regarding how Trump was portrayed and what his chances were. The fact that he was dismissed and downplayed as a candidate is undenial. Poles were only a small part of the overall media coverage dismissing and marginalizing his chances, and there were poles at that time, early on, showing Trump behind other candidates. Just as there are poles now that are being shown to support that he is behind.
I'm fixating on polls because I contend that looking at the polls is the best way to gauge the state of the race - I don't think anyone disputes that Trump was and is doubted by many analysts, and that that doubt was misplaced in the primaries. The difference between the primaries and now is that during the primaries Trump led every poll. The analysts who doubted him were doing so despite his stellar poll numbers. I think your statement that "there were polls at that time, early on, showing Trump behind other candidates" is, quite simply, false. Scroll through the list of polls. He leads every single one in 2016, and almost every single one in 2015. There was never a time when the polls suggested that he was doing anything but leading comfortably. It's the complete opposite of what the general election polls show.
I personally do not think that these recent poles are completely accurate. I have seen a report I am trying to verify right now regarding the veracity of recent poles. There is a claim that the poling sample group was not random but that it was intentionally selected with a higher proportion of Democratic respondents. In the example I saw approximately 1200 registered voters were contacted. Rather than a random selection of voters a group of 550 Republicans had been contacted and 650 Democrats. This obviously will generate false data. I was hoping to have had time today to research the validity of these reports. If this is actually the case it is an egregious violation of the public trust at the least.
...
That's literally how every poll works. That's like polling 101. I'm not going to bother walking you through this.
So Trump just claimed that the only way he's losing Pennsylvania is if there's cheating going on, despite a poll 5 days ago showing him down by 11 points.
He also said:
We're going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times
Because encouraging your supporters to intimidate the other side's voters at the voting locations never leads to bad things.
The outrage isn't justified, it's a result of interpretation. That's the point. He didn't actually say the thing you're mad about, he intentionally said something that leads to you THINKING he said that in an attempt to manipulate the media, like he has been doing for the past year.
Ok, here's what you said:
I think this is yet another example of Trump intentionally making a statement that could be taken in multiple contexts as an attempt to pander to his base while also leaving himself plausible deniability.
And why are people outraged? Because he did exactly that.
You are exactly right about this. Trump is reshaping the Republican Party in a way that I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan.
HAWKEYE7, first of all, it's good to see you again. I assume you're still mafia-ing?
Second, Trump isn't reshaping the Republican Party. What he's doing is taking the underlying racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity that the Republican Party had always known about but tried to pretend wasn't there and brought a big, fat spotlight right on it.
And here's the important part: that's not a good thing.
All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good. Everything he said about his poling and the eventual outcome was true. the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers, just as they will pump up Hillarie's numbers, down play evidence of her wrong doing and her mental health issues, but it will do no good.
As others have said, the media acknowledged his poll numbers were high, but downplayed them because they underestimated Trump. Right now, though? Trump's numbers are abysmal. For ****'s sake, Georgia and Arizona have become swing states in this election.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing.
He is well-versed in playing the media to his advantage. But the presidential campaign is not American Idol. It's a decision as to who will become the most powerful man in the world for four years. People live or die based on this decision. Countries may fall based on this decision. Trump has been very well at marketing snake oil, but that should not encourage us to buy his snake oil.
You are exactly right about this. Trump is reshaping the Republican Party in a way that I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan.
HAWKEYE7, first of all, it's good to see you again. I assume you're still mafia-ing?
Second, Trump isn't reshaping the Republican Party. What he's doing is taking the underlying racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity that the Republican Party had always known about but tried to pretend wasn't there and brought a big, fat spotlight right on it.
And here's the important part: that's not a good thing..
Thank you. It is very good to be back and to see that so many of the members I hold in high regard, yourself included, are still here. I have not played Mafia since I left, but it is one of the main reasons I am back. I am very much looking forward to playing again.
What you say about Trumps tactics is true and If I gave the impression that I thought it was a good thing I will have to do a better job of expressing myself. There is a great deal of similarity in how he is going about his campaign with how Ronald Reagan ran his first presidential campaign. Both appealed directly to the people, almost bypassing the mainstream media to get their message out. However, both were very good at utilizing media to convey their messages as well. The main and obvious difference was that Reagan appealed to his audience in a positive manner, with hope and optimism where Trump is cloaking his campaign with a shroud of positivity but it is for the most part a campaign appealing to traits of “racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity.” I don’t agree with it but I think he will win with it. Unfortunately.
All through the primaries the media under estimated or under reported trumps support and it did no good. Everything he said about his poling and the eventual outcome was true. the media will continue to falsely report Trumps numbers, just as they will pump up Hillarie's numbers, down play evidence of her wrong doing and her mental health issues, but it will do no good.
As others have said, the media acknowledged his poll numbers were high, but downplayed them because they underestimated Trump. Right now, though? Trump's numbers are abysmal. For ****'s sake, Georgia and Arizona have become swing states in this election. ..
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
A presidential campaign is essentially a marketing campaign and Donald Trump is a MASTER of marketing.
He is well-versed in playing the media to his advantage. But the presidential campaign is not American Idol. It's a decision as to who will become the most powerful man in the world for four years. People live or die based on this decision. Countries may fall based on this decision. Trump has been very well at marketing snake oil, but that should not encourage us to buy his snake oil.
I wish I had as much faith in the American public as you seem to. Unfortunately, Walmart, QVC, Amazon and the Home Shopping Network are as successful as they are for a reason. Is it taking the low road?, yes. Is Trump above taking it if it means winning? Not on your life. He’ll do it in a New York minute. You are right about countries falling based on this decision. Countries have fallen, very recently, IE. the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Syria, as a result of traditional candidates being elected as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
Well, what we have here is a falsifiable prediction. If Trump continues to say stupid stuff that reflects badly on him, then we may conclude that he isn't smart and hasn't learned his lesson.
(Spoiler alert: That's exactly what will happen. This experiment has been run before, several times -- people have been saying that Trump is going to turn around and start controlling himself better ever since he started winning primaries. All experimental results so far have been negative. This is not an introspective man we're dealing with here.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, what we have here is a falsifiable prediction. If Trump continues to say stupid stuff that reflects badly on him, then we may conclude that he isn't smart and hasn't learned his lesson.
(Spoiler alert: That's exactly what will happen. This experiment has been run before, several times -- people have been saying that Trump is going to turn around and start controlling himself better ever since he started winning primaries. All experimental results so far have been negative. This is not an introspective man we're dealing with here.)
He visibly does not introspect; when his approval dropped like a stone after the Khans, he decided to drop another bombshell with incitement of assassination towards Clinton.
I'm interested as to whether he will lead to a schism in the party between the rational Republicans and radical racists.
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
Then the Democrats would field another candidate, one who isn't as unpopular as Clinton is, and Trump will be maligned for the rest of his campaign as encouraging the assassination of a political rival. Trump still doesn't win in this scenario. In fact, that's assuming the Republicans wouldn't kick Trump out as the candidate, which I imagine they would.
election is over as far as i'm concerned.
i don't see how trump avoids a landfall defeat in the fall.
Someone ACTUALLY shoots Hillary Clinton?
Massive victory for whomever replaces her then...actually, anyone knows what happens if one of the candidates breaks their neck falling down the stairs? Does their VP take their place?
Massive victory for whomever replaces her then...actually, anyone knows what happens if one of the candidates breaks their neck falling down the stairs? Does their VP take their place?
The rules are set by the party. I know that for the GOP, the party leadership gets together and selects a new candidate. Offhand, I can't say for certain that the same is true of the Democrats, but I would be surprised if it weren't.
In practice, I suspect that the running mate would be at the top of the list, especially when it's as good a candidate as Tim Kaine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Massive victory for whomever replaces her then...actually, anyone knows what happens if one of the candidates breaks their neck falling down the stairs? Does their VP take their place?
The rules are set by the party. I know that for the GOP, the party leadership gets together and selects a new candidate. Offhand, I can't say for certain that the same is true of the Democrats, but I would be surprised if it weren't.
In practice, I suspect that the running mate would be at the top of the list, especially when it's as good a candidate as Tim Kaine.
Wouldn't there also be issues with getting the new candidate on the ballot in all of the states? Each state would have its own rules about whether to allow a replacement candidate at this point in election.
Wouldn't there also be issues with getting the new candidate on the ballot in all of the states? Each state would have its own rules about whether to allow a replacement candidate at this point in election.
Yeah, it'd be a logistical nightmare in a lot of ways and it would probably spell defeat for the party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From what I've read Mike Pence would not be elevated to the top of the ticket if Trump ever left the race (either voluntarily or against his own volition) because the presidential and VP nominations are separately voted on. The GOP would likely call an emergency conference call as sort of a makeshift convention to parachute a white knight into Trump's place. As azmod mentioned, many states will have their ballots locked in with Trump's name. They could mitigate that sort of damage if they did it NOW, but realistically speaking by the time they would replace Trump it would be too late in many states to get the new candidate's name on the ballot.
What will likely happen is that the GOP will simply yank their funding from Trump's campaign and divert money to downticket races in order to preserve the House, Senate, and state level offices. At this point most of the sane GOP officials realize this election is lost. Trump refuses to pivot (as seen in his hiring of the Breitbart exec and demoting Manafort), refuses to keep his mouth shut, and does not want to work with GOP officials in building critical campaign infrastructure. Barring a complete disaster or unfounded revelation or scandal to come out of Hillary's campaign, Trump is facing down the barrel of a blowout on election day.
Trump will still be the official nominee but it will become a zombie campaign. He'll still hold his rallies and continue to dominate traditional and social media, but he will be getting no support from the GOP higher-ups and donors. There already is precedent for the GOP doing this -- this is exactly what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. The GOP pulled his funding and diverted it on preserving Congress. Dole got wiped out on election night to Bill Clinton but the GOP still controlled Congress. The real fun will be what happens after the election. There has been talk that Trump wants to start his own cable network and considering the context of what he's done since the conventions ended it makes a lot of sense. Trump is self-destructing, but he's also solidifying his base at the same time so he can lay the groundwork for a news channel. I would not be surprised to see Trump News Channel become a thing in the next year.
Trump’s rationale, according to this person, is that, “win or lose, we are onto something here. We’ve triggered a base of the population that hasn’t had a voice in a long time.” For his part, Kushner was heard at a New York dinner party saying that “the people here don’t understand what I’m seeing. You go to these arenas and people go crazy for him.”
i.e. His cable company's main purpose would be to give a voice to all the white supremacists and neo-nazies and attempt to push them into normalcy and mainstream. He basically wants a a machine through which he can directly distribute his propaganda and bull*****.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Over the next week Trump is going to make a calculated conciliatory move to make himself look like a sane candidate. Tossing away his previous campaign manager and trying to push the blame off on him. He'll apologize for the words he used that harmed people (without meaning a word of what he says). Probably based on insider information. Now that he's locked up the alt-right, we'll see if the American people are fooled by this. If conservatives see the principled man they always thought he might be able to turn into.
But, it's nothing more than an opportunistic move based on a lack of respect for the American public. If he succeeds on nothing more than a publicity stunt, a false showing of good will, it will be very unfortunate. But, if he has any chance of movement, from a numbers perspective, we could see the race tighten this week.
We may be looking at a collapse of the current system in its entirety in the next few years.
I agree with everything, but the apologizing. I don't think he will think an apology is necessary, and realizes several of his voter base likes his unapologetic attitude (whether it's justified or not).
I want to see how many more Republicans rescind their endorsement of him. From a political standpoint, I don't know if it would be more beneficial to do it ASAP, or do it right before the election so that it is fresh in the voter's minds that this Senator/Representative is not a Trump fan.
It's also looking like first time voters are willing to gamble on a 3rd party:
What? Third parties have been a significant force in multiple elections.
We may be looking at a collapse of the current system in its entirety in the next few years.
Maybe, but it won't be a result of the third parties. The reason the third parties are getting voters has nothing to do with the third parties becoming more appealing, it has everything to do with the two dominant parties nominating extremely unfavorable candidates. You'll notice that people have to be reminded of how unpopular Hillary Clinton is, which speaks volumes as to how awful Trump is. Had Kasich or Rubio gotten the nomination, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
The question is what sort of lasting damage Trump will do to the Republican party.
Maybe, but it won't be a result of the third parties. The reason the third parties are getting voters has nothing to do with the third parties becoming more appealing, it has everything to do with the two dominant parties nominating extremely unfavorable candidates. You'll notice that people have to be reminded of how unpopular Hillary Clinton is, which speaks volumes as to how awful Trump is. Had Kasich or Rubio gotten the nomination, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
I sort of agree with this. A likeable Democrat versus a normal Republican and this race would look an awful lot like 2008 or 2012.
But the fact that we don't have that race is going to have lasting consequences. People are going to remember what happened here. And it may be to the detriment of the major parties and the benefit of the third parties (or at least one of the third parties, probably the Libertarians -- the Greens still look pretty hopeless).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think we've seen 3rd party numbers as high as 10% (Garry Johnson) 5% (Jill Stein). Which is where those numbers are coming in. If they manage those levels, both the Green and Libertarian parties could manage federal funding; putting them on a new operational level.
Gary Johnson regularly polled at 5% in 2012, ended up with <1% of the vote. Jill Stein regularly polled at 3-4%, ended up with less than half a percent of the vote. Bob Barr also hit 5-6% in polls in 2008, ended up with less than half a percent. Ralph Nader's 2000 run is the only recent election where one of these parties managed to actually get close to their pre-election polling numbers.
Of course, before that, Ross Perot's runs actually did get him >5% of the vote. Look how well that worked out for the reform party, who actually did get federal funding for the 2000 election. They promptly lost it after coming in a distant fourth.
“Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our country,”
That's strange, considering Trump's new campaign chief executive, Stephen Bannon, ran editorial meetings at Breitbart that sounded like white supremacist rallies, where he regularly disparaged minorities, women, and immigrants. This is according to a former Breitbart staff member (Kurt Bardella) who quit when Michelle Fields got thrown under the bus (metaphorically) after Corey Lewandowski manhandled her. [link]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
But the fact that we don't have that race is going to have lasting consequences. People are going to remember what happened here. And it may be to the detriment of the major parties and the benefit of the third parties (or at least one of the third parties, probably the Libertarians -- the Greens still look pretty hopeless).
Oh, most definitely, but the question becomes what happens in the next election should a likeable Republican square off against an unlikeable Democrat? Also, what happens if Clinton does get elected? As noted, Clinton is very unpopular, it's just that Trump is worse. But when Clinton gets elected, she won't have the benefit of having Trump there to make her look better by comparison. What if Clinton's favorability ratings tank and never stop tanking? We may have a upswing in Republican support.
But yes, I do believe the continued racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry of Trump, in addition to the failure of so many Republicans to disavow him, will have a lasting toll. I would hope at least.
Gary Johnson regularly polled at 5% in 2012, ended up with <1% of the vote. Jill Stein regularly polled at 3-4%, ended up with less than half a percent of the vote. Bob Barr also hit 5-6% in polls in 2008, ended up with less than half a percent. Ralph Nader's 2000 run is the only recent election where one of these parties managed to actually get close to their pre-election polling numbers.
Of course, before that, Ross Perot's runs actually did get him >5% of the vote. Look how well that worked out for the reform party, who actually did get federal funding for the 2000 election. They promptly lost it after coming in a distant fourth.
The Reform Party actually could have taken off. They elected Jesse Ventura to governor of Minnesota in 1998 which was a massive coup as far as third party victories go.
The problem was Pat Buchanan joined the Reform Party and took over, using the federal funding to pay off previous campaign debts from his failed 1992 and 1996 presidential runs. Once Buchanan secured the Reform nomination he then ran no meaningful campaign to kill the party. It was essentially an act of sabotage to make sure the Reform party would not affect the GOP.
The funny thing was Trump was trying to run for president back then under the Reform party at that time. He detested Buchanan. Now Buchanan is one of Trump's most ardent supporters... which actually makes a lot of sense in retrospect despite their quarrels in 2000.
The Reform Party actually could have taken off. They elected Jesse Ventura to governor of Minnesota in 1998 which was a massive coup as far as third party victories go.
The problem was Pat Buchanan joined the Reform Party and took over, using the federal funding to pay off previous campaign debts from his failed 1992 and 1996 presidential runs. Once Buchanan secured the Reform nomination he then ran no meaningful campaign to kill the party. It was essentially an act of sabotage to make sure the Reform party would not affect the GOP.
The funny thing was Trump was trying to run for president back then under the Reform party at that time. He detested Buchanan. Now Buchanan is one of Trump's most ardent supporters... which actually makes a lot of sense in retrospect despite their quarrels in 2000.
The reason Buchanan was able to win the nomination is that they lacked the unity or vision to recruit a viable candidate after Perot. The apparent nominee had Buchanan not been there was John Hagelin, also completely unelectable. The electoral success of the party was really the success of Perot (and later Ventura) - without them, they had nothing.
But when Clinton gets elected, she won't have the benefit of having Trump there to make her look better by comparison. What if Clinton's favorability ratings tank and never stop tanking? We may have a upswing in Republican support.
It's a demonstrated phenomenon with Clinton that her favorability ratings are much worse when she's campaigning than when she's on the job. I expect the polls to show a solid "meh" for her unless some disaster occurs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If history shows anything, third parties don't take the place of major parties in the US system. What you'd see are primaries that are increasingly hotly contested, and lots of individuals jumping from one major party to the other, until the issues themselves change. Usually this means a subtle shift rather than an entire rebranding. You'll only find an actual party change in name where there is an extremely intransigent faction (such as with Slavery pre-Civil War), that also continues to rack up local elections. And, they have to rack up those elections at such landslides that local party leaders would opt for continuing to win their elections rather than having any national support.
Something I remembered recently with the whole Churchill being compared to Trump line, Churchill actually changed parties twice. The political landscape was extremely volatile then in the UK, so there were enough voters who sided with him each time. Of course, he made a career of taking unpopular positions, and it didn't always work out. Relevant to now, maybe the Left after Hillary becomes isolationist under a guy like Sanders, then a lot of the hawkish, pro-business people on the Right jump ship to contest primaries in Blue states.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm fixating on polls because I contend that looking at the polls is the best way to gauge the state of the race - I don't think anyone disputes that Trump was and is doubted by many analysts, and that that doubt was misplaced in the primaries. The difference between the primaries and now is that during the primaries Trump led every poll. The analysts who doubted him were doing so despite his stellar poll numbers. I think your statement that "there were polls at that time, early on, showing Trump behind other candidates" is, quite simply, false. Scroll through the list of polls. He leads every single one in 2016, and almost every single one in 2015. There was never a time when the polls suggested that he was doing anything but leading comfortably. It's the complete opposite of what the general election polls show.
...
That's literally how every poll works. That's like polling 101. I'm not going to bother walking you through this.
He also said:
Because encouraging your supporters to intimidate the other side's voters at the voting locations never leads to bad things.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
And why are people outraged? Because he did exactly that.
HAWKEYE7, first of all, it's good to see you again. I assume you're still mafia-ing?
Second, Trump isn't reshaping the Republican Party. What he's doing is taking the underlying racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity that the Republican Party had always known about but tried to pretend wasn't there and brought a big, fat spotlight right on it.
And here's the important part: that's not a good thing.
As others have said, the media acknowledged his poll numbers were high, but downplayed them because they underestimated Trump. Right now, though? Trump's numbers are abysmal. For ****'s sake, Georgia and Arizona have become swing states in this election.
He is well-versed in playing the media to his advantage. But the presidential campaign is not American Idol. It's a decision as to who will become the most powerful man in the world for four years. People live or die based on this decision. Countries may fall based on this decision. Trump has been very well at marketing snake oil, but that should not encourage us to buy his snake oil.
Thank you. It is very good to be back and to see that so many of the members I hold in high regard, yourself included, are still here. I have not played Mafia since I left, but it is one of the main reasons I am back. I am very much looking forward to playing again.
What you say about Trumps tactics is true and If I gave the impression that I thought it was a good thing I will have to do a better job of expressing myself. There is a great deal of similarity in how he is going about his campaign with how Ronald Reagan ran his first presidential campaign. Both appealed directly to the people, almost bypassing the mainstream media to get their message out. However, both were very good at utilizing media to convey their messages as well. The main and obvious difference was that Reagan appealed to his audience in a positive manner, with hope and optimism where Trump is cloaking his campaign with a shroud of positivity but it is for the most part a campaign appealing to traits of “racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and general insanity.” I don’t agree with it but I think he will win with it. Unfortunately.
I could be wrong but I think he will start pulling rabbits out of his arse to turn it around. I think he learned a valuable lesson about the difference between attacking a media member and attacking a fallen soldiers family member. If he is smart he will continue to try to hammer Hilary on her dishonesty, her record and Bill.
I wish I had as much faith in the American public as you seem to. Unfortunately, Walmart, QVC, Amazon and the Home Shopping Network are as successful as they are for a reason. Is it taking the low road?, yes. Is Trump above taking it if it means winning? Not on your life. He’ll do it in a New York minute. You are right about countries falling based on this decision. Countries have fallen, very recently, IE. the Arab Spring and subsequent developments in Syria, as a result of traditional candidates being elected as well.
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
(Spoiler alert: That's exactly what will happen. This experiment has been run before, several times -- people have been saying that Trump is going to turn around and start controlling himself better ever since he started winning primaries. All experimental results so far have been negative. This is not an introspective man we're dealing with here.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He visibly does not introspect; when his approval dropped like a stone after the Khans, he decided to drop another bombshell with incitement of assassination towards Clinton.
I'm interested as to whether he will lead to a schism in the party between the rational Republicans and radical racists.
I'm guessing he learned nothing.
i don't see how trump avoids a landfall defeat in the fall.
Massive victory for whomever replaces her then...actually, anyone knows what happens if one of the candidates breaks their neck falling down the stairs? Does their VP take their place?
In practice, I suspect that the running mate would be at the top of the list, especially when it's as good a candidate as Tim Kaine.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wouldn't there also be issues with getting the new candidate on the ballot in all of the states? Each state would have its own rules about whether to allow a replacement candidate at this point in election.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What will likely happen is that the GOP will simply yank their funding from Trump's campaign and divert money to downticket races in order to preserve the House, Senate, and state level offices. At this point most of the sane GOP officials realize this election is lost. Trump refuses to pivot (as seen in his hiring of the Breitbart exec and demoting Manafort), refuses to keep his mouth shut, and does not want to work with GOP officials in building critical campaign infrastructure. Barring a complete disaster or unfounded revelation or scandal to come out of Hillary's campaign, Trump is facing down the barrel of a blowout on election day.
Trump will still be the official nominee but it will become a zombie campaign. He'll still hold his rallies and continue to dominate traditional and social media, but he will be getting no support from the GOP higher-ups and donors. There already is precedent for the GOP doing this -- this is exactly what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. The GOP pulled his funding and diverted it on preserving Congress. Dole got wiped out on election night to Bill Clinton but the GOP still controlled Congress. The real fun will be what happens after the election. There has been talk that Trump wants to start his own cable network and considering the context of what he's done since the conventions ended it makes a lot of sense. Trump is self-destructing, but he's also solidifying his base at the same time so he can lay the groundwork for a news channel. I would not be surprised to see Trump News Channel become a thing in the next year.
The most alarming line from that article is this:
i.e. His cable company's main purpose would be to give a voice to all the white supremacists and neo-nazies and attempt to push them into normalcy and mainstream. He basically wants a a machine through which he can directly distribute his propaganda and bull*****.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I agree with everything, but the apologizing. I don't think he will think an apology is necessary, and realizes several of his voter base likes his unapologetic attitude (whether it's justified or not).
I want to see how many more Republicans rescind their endorsement of him. From a political standpoint, I don't know if it would be more beneficial to do it ASAP, or do it right before the election so that it is fresh in the voter's minds that this Senator/Representative is not a Trump fan.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Maybe, but it won't be a result of the third parties. The reason the third parties are getting voters has nothing to do with the third parties becoming more appealing, it has everything to do with the two dominant parties nominating extremely unfavorable candidates. You'll notice that people have to be reminded of how unpopular Hillary Clinton is, which speaks volumes as to how awful Trump is. Had Kasich or Rubio gotten the nomination, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
The question is what sort of lasting damage Trump will do to the Republican party.
But the fact that we don't have that race is going to have lasting consequences. People are going to remember what happened here. And it may be to the detriment of the major parties and the benefit of the third parties (or at least one of the third parties, probably the Libertarians -- the Greens still look pretty hopeless).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Gary Johnson regularly polled at 5% in 2012, ended up with <1% of the vote. Jill Stein regularly polled at 3-4%, ended up with less than half a percent of the vote. Bob Barr also hit 5-6% in polls in 2008, ended up with less than half a percent. Ralph Nader's 2000 run is the only recent election where one of these parties managed to actually get close to their pre-election polling numbers.
Of course, before that, Ross Perot's runs actually did get him >5% of the vote. Look how well that worked out for the reform party, who actually did get federal funding for the 2000 election. They promptly lost it after coming in a distant fourth.
Art is life itself.
But yes, I do believe the continued racism/sexism/xenophobia/bigotry of Trump, in addition to the failure of so many Republicans to disavow him, will have a lasting toll. I would hope at least.
You're going to need study US elections before making a statement like that, my friend. You need only look as far back as 1992.
Which is my point. It's been proselytized for a decade now. And that's gotten them where, exactly?
The Reform Party actually could have taken off. They elected Jesse Ventura to governor of Minnesota in 1998 which was a massive coup as far as third party victories go.
The problem was Pat Buchanan joined the Reform Party and took over, using the federal funding to pay off previous campaign debts from his failed 1992 and 1996 presidential runs. Once Buchanan secured the Reform nomination he then ran no meaningful campaign to kill the party. It was essentially an act of sabotage to make sure the Reform party would not affect the GOP.
The funny thing was Trump was trying to run for president back then under the Reform party at that time. He detested Buchanan. Now Buchanan is one of Trump's most ardent supporters... which actually makes a lot of sense in retrospect despite their quarrels in 2000.
The reason Buchanan was able to win the nomination is that they lacked the unity or vision to recruit a viable candidate after Perot. The apparent nominee had Buchanan not been there was John Hagelin, also completely unelectable. The electoral success of the party was really the success of Perot (and later Ventura) - without them, they had nothing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Something I remembered recently with the whole Churchill being compared to Trump line, Churchill actually changed parties twice. The political landscape was extremely volatile then in the UK, so there were enough voters who sided with him each time. Of course, he made a career of taking unpopular positions, and it didn't always work out. Relevant to now, maybe the Left after Hillary becomes isolationist under a guy like Sanders, then a lot of the hawkish, pro-business people on the Right jump ship to contest primaries in Blue states.